• scoobford@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    6 hours ago

    No. Imagining an independent future for any state (including California and Texas) is pure cope. The states are so interdependent that attempting to secede would be ruinous for the state in question.

    The only exceptions I can think of are Alaska and Hawaii, which might be able to survive if they found another country to keep them supplied and economically connected.

  • pleasegoaway@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I like the idea of it, but California is a cash cow and the US would never let that cash cow get away.

  • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What you are proposing would start a North American war deadlier than any that has ever been seen. Everyone thought Texas was dumb for talking about secession, but now that other states don’t want to be part of the union, people act like it is a serious idea. It isn’t. Never has been.

    In the words of Ben Franklin, “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

    • psychadlligoat@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Everyone knew Texas talking about it was dumb because they’re not self sufficient

      California actually is, and if we’re hated by the rest of the country anyway, we’ll just go ahead and leave. Let the rest states have fun paying for shit without us

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Define self sufficient.

        California is not self sufficient in my opinion. They may have a lot of money, but they rely heavily on interstate commerce and trade routes for their prosperity. Taxes and cost of living are already high, and those things would explode if cut off from trade. The federal government won’t hesitate to use their leverage to keep other countries from supporting the newly declared independence of California.

        Texas is not self sufficient either, but I’m not advocating for their secession.

        Put simply, we need fewer borders, not more of them. Any state that thinks they can take their money and run will find themselves brutalized by the federal government, taxed to oblivion by neighboring states, and experiencing an exodus of companies who are based there. It is the path to destruction, not liberation.

    • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      plus there is the bonus of schadenfreunde, since they always want to balkanize countries that happen to stand in their path.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      To take this in a different direction, legal or not (considering the “higher power” generally gets to define what is and isn’t legal and might do so for its own benefit rather than in the best interest of everyone, if there even is such a thing), how can it be determined if a subset of a power structure breaking away from that power structure is a good thing or bad thing? What arguments other than “we’ll use force” are there to support a region needing to remain under the thumb of a power they no longer wish to serve?

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Nope. The south already tried that.

          If you want to gain independence, you have to fight the federal government’s monopoly on violence. At its core, that’s how all law is backed up. Two things you need to be a country. First, the ability to backup your independence with force. Second, the acknowledgement of the international community and their willingness to sign treaties with you. Sealand doesn’t have any issues defending their “independence”, but no one has signed a treaty with them for instance.

    • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      No but there’s no law against expelling a state from the union. Kind of a reverse secession if you can piss trump off enough for him to actually do it (no law saying that only Congress can expel them, so it would go to the courts).

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      The Constitution of the US of frickin A

          • _stranger_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            The preamble to the Constitution is NOT the same as the preamble to the declaration of Independence. They were completely separate documents written more than a decade apart.

            in fact:

            The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[44]: 92  George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson’s words.[44]: 90 [21]: 165–167  “In none of these documents”, wrote Pauline Maier, “is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men’s minds as a classic statement of American political principles.”[21]: 167

  • VampirePenguin@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No. We’d be overrun by federal troops and decimated within a week. If we could secede peacefully? We (Wisconsin) would probably need an alliance with Minnesota and Michigan to survive.

  • qt0x40490FDB@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 hours ago

    No. There is no mechanism to allow this. The union is perpetual, and cannot be brought to an end. A state can no more leave than US than a city or a house.

  • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    16 hours ago

    If the Union completely dissolved and each state had to function as nation, it would be a massive boom for the oligarchs. They already have more money than most states.

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I imagine they’d form blocs, on centred on California obviously, one on the other coast, and a few in between