What if States Acted to end the power of the Fed. gov.?

[Cozarkian]

Cail,

But if a majority of the States but a minority of the population want the Federal Government disbanded is disbanding really "listening to the people"?

Morally, what should happen in that situation is that the 12 states with the majority of the population should put together a constitutional convention and vote it back into force, but only for those 12 states, allowing the other 38 to leave peacefully.

[SkurjMaster]

So let's say it happened. That the Federal Govt was disbanded and that certain portions banded together to form new national states. Which such amalgamations are going to want to absorb poor states like West Virginia? Other than its natural resources, it has nothing else to offer. Overall poor educational system. Entitlement mentality and economy. WV is the state in which Robert 'Give me my hood' Byrd thrived by giving out billions of dollars worth of goodies. And WV is not alone.

Having said that. I would like to see something done about our Federal Government. But it should start with the impeachment of Barack Obama and the arrest for treason of all of those who could be held responsible for the atrocity at Benghazi. The folks who gave us the Patriot act should also be punished.

[SerScot]

SM,

No clue what the end result would be. Something different is my best guess.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The red states that seceded/dissolved the gummint would lose a heck of a lot more than they gained. It's the more populous blue states that fund a lot of their programs. Good luck paying for 'em on your own, guys. Buh-bye, and don't let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out.

We don't need those programs, though--many of them cause more long-term harm than good so ending them would be a blessing. I don't mean to pick on Michigan but what, exactly, does Michigan have to offer that Texas needs? Or Vermont, for that matter? Or New Jersey?

In short, blue needs red more than red needs blue.

I would like to see something done about our Federal Government. But it should start with the impeachment of Barack Obama and the arrest for treason of all of those who could be held responsible for the atrocity at Benghazi.

i will have to disagree with you here. The Republicans should neither impeach Mr. Obama nor move forward with their ridiculous idea of suing him because if they do so then the Democrats will bide their time and do the same thing to some future Republican President--they will eagerly anticipate some payback. It will make the politics more rancorous and more divisive, which won't do anyone any good whatsoever.

The mishandling of Benghazi doesn't quite qualify as treason, in my opinion.

[aliantha]

Hashi, you can go ahead and pick on Michigan if you want. I live in Virginia. (Actually, I think Virginia gets more back in federal tax money than we pay, due to the large military presence here. But I'm still too lazy to look it up. )

You can turn that around, too, and ask what Texas offers that Michigan/Vermont/New Jersey need. We can buy your oil elsewhere. And we don't need your cattle -- red meat's unhealthy anyway.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Hashi, you can go ahead and pick on Michigan if you want. I live in Virginia. (Actually, I think Virginia gets more back in federal tax money than we pay, due to the large military presence here. But I'm still too lazy to look it up. )

You can turn that around, too, and ask what Texas offers that Michigan/Vermont/New Jersey need. We can buy your oil elsewhere. And we don't need your cattle -- red meat's unhealthy anyway.

The amount of money sent versus the amount received is an irrelevant statistic, anyway, and is often only used to try and cast some State in a negative light.

That sort of truthfulness doesn't bother me in the slightest. If other States wish to buy their oil from other sources then they are allowed to do so--the "free" in "free market" means you are always able to find a better deal if you can. North Dakota is booming in natural gas almost more than Texas and it wouldn't have to be shipped as far to reach other Northern States.

As I noted earlier, though, this is all academic because no one seriously believes that we are anywhere near the point of breaking up or starting over. It would have to get worse--significantly worse--for quite a while before anything like that was possible. It won't happen in my lifetime and probably won't happen in our kids' lifetime, either.

[Vraith]

It won't happen in my lifetime and probably won't happen in our kids' lifetime, either.

Most likely true [though one can never be certain...]
But I'd ALSO bet that whatever the driving force/event that sets it off won't be anything anyone's raging about now. [[except maybe at the intersection of wealth inequality and the stuff in the jobs/automation/human replacement threads/conversations...and I think we Watch folk have been way out in front on that issue. And I think those two things have a number of strange interconnections and a lot of turbulence. A conjunction I've been pondering/flailing about in for a while]]

[Cail]

Hashi, you can go ahead and pick on Michigan if you want. I live in Virginia. (Actually, I think Virginia gets more back in federal tax money than we pay, due to the large military presence here. But I'm still too lazy to look it up. )

You can turn that around, too, and ask what Texas offers that Michigan/Vermont/New Jersey need. We can buy your oil elsewhere. And we don't need your cattle -- red meat's unhealthy anyway.

Virginia is the beneficiary of the Bush/Obama Doctrine of using the Military/Industrial complex often. They're also the beneficiary of their proximity to the ever-expanding seat of federal power. If we ever stop invading other countries and shrink the ridiculous bureaucracy in DC, Virginia will lose their host they've been feasting on all remora-like. The only thing Virginia produces is bureaucrats and coal. Pray that the southwestern part of the state doesn't want to secede.

[Damelon]

The red states that seceded/dissolved the gummint would lose a heck of a lot more than they gained. It's the more populous blue states that fund a lot of their programs. Good luck paying for 'em on your own, guys. Buh-bye, and don't let the door hit you in the @ss on your way out.

We don't need those programs, though--many of them cause more long-term harm than good so ending them would be a blessing. I don't mean to pick on Michigan but what, exactly, does Michigan have to offer that Texas needs? Or Vermont, for that matter? Or New Jersey?

Water. Which in the long run is going to be a lot more important than oil.

[aliantha]

Hashi, you can go ahead and pick on Michigan if you want. I live in Virginia. (Actually, I think Virginia gets more back in federal tax money than we pay, due to the large military presence here. But I'm still too lazy to look it up. )

You can turn that around, too, and ask what Texas offers that Michigan/Vermont/New Jersey need. We can buy your oil elsewhere. And we don't need your cattle -- red meat's unhealthy anyway.

Virginia is the beneficiary of the Bush/Obama Doctrine of using the Military/Industrial complex often. They're also the beneficiary of their proximity to the ever-expanding seat of federal power. If we ever stop invading other countries and shrink the ridiculous bureaucracy in DC, Virginia will lose their host they've been feasting on all remora-like. The only thing Virginia produces is bureaucrats and coal. Pray that the southwestern part of the state doesn't want to secede.

You forgot tobacco.

And I'm pretty sure Maryland is in much the same situation when it comes to remora-like feasting on the feds. Y'all don't have as much in the way of military installations, but you've got your share of Beltway bandit headquarters. Not to mention that all those gummint bureaucrats live in Montgomery County.

[Damelon]

One of the "huh" moments of my trip out east last year was listening to a radio commercial played on a classic rock station located in the D.C area. It was for a major defense contractor that was apparently pushing for approval of some naval combat system or another. It took me a minute or so to figure that they had a Pentagon or Capitol Hill demographic in mind.

[Cail]

Hashi, you can go ahead and pick on Michigan if you want. I live in Virginia. (Actually, I think Virginia gets more back in federal tax money than we pay, due to the large military presence here. But I'm still too lazy to look it up. )

You can turn that around, too, and ask what Texas offers that Michigan/Vermont/New Jersey need. We can buy your oil elsewhere. And we don't need your cattle -- red meat's unhealthy anyway.

Virginia is the beneficiary of the Bush/Obama Doctrine of using the Military/Industrial complex often. They're also the beneficiary of their proximity to the ever-expanding seat of federal power. If we ever stop invading other countries and shrink the ridiculous bureaucracy in DC, Virginia will lose their host they've been feasting on all remora-like. The only thing Virginia produces is bureaucrats and coal. Pray that the southwestern part of the state doesn't want to secede.

You forgot tobacco.

And I'm pretty sure Maryland is in much the same situation when it comes to remora-like feasting on the feds. Y'all don't have as much in the way of military installations, but you've got your share of Beltway bandit headquarters. Not to mention that all those gummint bureaucrats live in Montgomery County.

And you know I have nothing but disdain for the gerrymandered, single-party mess that is Maryland. I can't get out of this Godforsaken state soon enough. The fact that MD and VA - who are so utterly dependent on the federal government - are both running far in the red is testament to how screwed up they are.

I live in MoCo and I'm disgusted at what I see......Though not as disgusted as I am at the VA campaign ads that equate a more sane foreign policy with the inevitable loss of Virginia jobs.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

We are about one hysterical gun control bill away from the end of the union.

People are greatly overestimating the actual power of the Federal government and military. The government exists via obedience and inertia, and the world's greatest military can't even subdue a bunch of goat herders sporting AKs and satellite phones. Consider just how reassuring the idea that the government is all-capable is, and you will begin to understand the depth of the cognitive dissonance that props it up. But that will dry up and blow away like dead leaves in the wind the moment 50,000 gun nuts feel forced to fight back. And I don't mean with concerted military action. I mean with diffuse and dispersed autonomous assassination and terrorism campaigns. And yes, the Feds will buck up and try to put the hammer down, but it will backfire and lead to a popular uprising wherein no government official is safe outside of their own specially created green zone. And yes, they will prioritize security of their own selves over attempting to control the chaos in the whole nation. In this way is the nation led unto anarchy and ruin, and the Federal government to irrelevance.

Naturally this would be a disaster of epic proportions.

There are a number of prophecies that predict the dissolution of the US into five smaller nations. Make of that what you will.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We don't need those programs, though--many of them cause more long-term harm than good so ending them would be a blessing. I don't mean to pick on Michigan but what, exactly, does Michigan have to offer that Texas needs? Or Vermont, for that matter? Or New Jersey?

Water. Which in the long run is going to be a lot more important than oil.

An excellent example, thank you. However, that is what the Gulf of Mexico is for. Advances in certain approaches (cogeneration, solar desalination, etc), combined with necessity, would result in increased use of desalination to provide the necessary water.

[aliantha]

They'd have to be pretty big advances. Everything I've heard about desalination is that it's not yet cost-effective on a large enough scale.

[SerScot]

Aliantha,

I believe all the water on Aruba is provided by a desalination plant. Further, desalination is used extensively by the gulf nations, is it not?

[Rawedge Rim]

They'd have to be pretty big advances. Everything I've heard about desalination is that it's not yet cost-effective on a large enough scale.

neither was fracking

[Damelon]

The largest desalinization plant in the western hemisphere is currently being built in California at the cost of $1 billion. When completed, it will provide 50 million gallons of water a day to the San Diego area.

By comparison, Chicago pumps almost 1 billion gallons of water a day out of Lake Michigan for it and surrounding suburbs.

There's a way to go before desalinization becomes cost effective, particularly in a broken up union. If there's a drought, it's easier to move. What happened during the dust bowl, many up and moved.

[Vraith]

There's a way to go before desalinization becomes cost effective, particularly in a broken up union. If there's a drought, it's easier to move. What happened during the dust bowl? Many just up and moved.

Not necessarily. By chance [or synchronicity] I've seen some pretty cool discoveries in 3 different technologies in the last month or so, all of which could drastically reduce the cost of desalinization.

A broken union has nasty potential effects BOTH ways, though, if it happens along current political lines. Without cheap desal. CA needs water from nearby states that would likely be in a different union even in the best of weather...but they need CA's food, too. [they have options, but mostly not as efficient.] The new unions could play nice and diplomatic. Or not.
With cheap desal. the "left coast" is in a damn powerful position. With plenty of cheap water, the whole coast needs pretty much nothing from anyone else, and they have a lot that other people need and want.
Kinda makes them a target...except the left coast also has significant military resources. And population.
The coast wins...the only chance if people don't want to play nice is if Texas joins against CA.
And they'll probably STILL lose. Cuz Mexico will side with CA, not Texas.
Especially when CA tells Mexico they can keep what they win from Texas.

You're right on the dust bowl thing. And the migration favors the left coast, too. [some will probably move other directions, like more easterly parts of gulf coast...anywhere but Texas, basically.]
And that point will matter a lot. Cuz climate change is real...and the places that are already dry are going to be totally dehydrated most of the time, with brief bouts of raging floods...according to most models. And the break up of the U.S. will, in itself, increase greenhouse emissions noticeably in pretty short order. [in fact, pretty much everything between the Miss. and the Rockies, especially the waterways that people really really need to live....and have only been saved/protected by the Feds, particularly the reviled EPA...are going to rapidly become toxic wastelands, or battlegrounds but most likely both...especially between the western great lakes region states and the southern Miss. states]

Now, Texas could desalinate, too. But that just means they'll go it alone, and indirectly help CA.
Cuz if you HAVE to negotiate terms for survival [water], no doubt you'll get a better deal from the Golden State than the Lone Star.

Heh..that's some tangenticity.

[SerScot]

Has anyone read American Nations by Colin Woodard:

www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History ... an+nations

It's not the first time somone has attempted to divide the US into culturally consistent nations and then discuss their differences but it is the most recent. He's a smug member of "Yankeedom" but his thesis definately has merit. It's interesting, to me, to see the cultural differences between my wife and I as she is a "Deep Southerner" and I'm a "Borderlander".

It's worth a read.