lord_whimsy ([info]lord_whimsy) wrote,
@ 2008-01-13 23:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:ill-considered notions

MOST LIKELY TO SECEDE?

"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The idea that the United States of America as a governmental entity is a failed experiement--that it is a bloated, clumsy, corrupt, bureaucratic, brutal, plutocratic monolith that no longer serves its people, and should be dissolved and reformed into a loose federation of independent entities--seems to be growing beyond its original crankish enclaves. Indeed, it seems to be gaining attention in the media, and I'll admit that it holds a stong appeal for me, personally. After all: what could possibly be more American?

So: Must we forsake America in order to save it? Has the time come for a more nimble, fluid, syncretic, and humane form of statehood? An ecosystem of various governing models? A viral commonwealth? Or are such notions silly? Irresponsible? Downright dangerous?

Now obviously, countless pragmatic concerns immediately arise--but at the moment let's just play "what if": if you were to secede and claim yourself North American rather than American, what form of society would you try to establish? Can dissolving the union be done peacefully? Should there be a complete break, or a loosening of ties--an alliance rather than a federation?

Here's a recent article on the subject which might interest.



(Post a new comment)


[info]sobekptah
2008-01-14 05:20 am UTC (link)

This sort of thing is pretty much my life's work, actually.

As for where/how I would want to live, personally...hidden somewhere in the cracks, most likely.

(Reply to this)


[info]drosselmeier
2008-01-14 05:33 am UTC (link)
It sounds crazy, but then I think of everyone I know who's moved out of the US or considered it for the same reasons.

Hi, by the way. I friended you.

(Reply to this)


[info]trini_naenae
2008-01-14 05:38 am UTC (link)
If I were to secede, it would be in a peaceful manner or not at all. There have been much more than enough violent revolutions and I have no desire for any more. On actual details, I'd have to think about it and come back to this.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-14 05:54 am UTC (link)
In principle, this makes a certain amount of sense. In practice, however...a lot less so. Simply, while geography is still an important component of identity, I think it's become less so, largely due to media (not least including this here internet thing). Let's imagine that a majority of Vermonters (say) decide to secede. Let's even imagine that the federal government allows it to happen. (While we're at it, let's imagine magical flying ponies who dispense candy from their bottoms.) What happens to the Vermonters who want to remain part of the US? Are they, then, to be compelled to move in order to retain their citizenship in the US? That seems wrong, and one reason simple majority decisions are not the be-all and end-all of "democracy," which I take to be a system that should give some sort of voice and representation to all its citizens. I think the perceived over-hugeness of the US, then, has much more to do with its grossly unrepresentative government, stemming from its deeply flawed electoral system, than it does with hugeness per se. People now find community not only where they live but who they are; websites like this one (or perhaps more clearly, if only due to more participants, Momus's) are a good example. I think many secessionists hope that if they could secede, all the residents of the resulting new state would have a voice. And that brings me back to my first question: how likely is unanimity (or nearly so) within a given geographic locale on that question? A lot of violence and unrest in the world has arisen from nationalisms and borders drawn arbitrarily to split organic communities or, conversely, yoke into a single nation disparate ones: secession seems likely to continue this trend rather than reduce it, however appealing it seems in the first blush of its utopian potential. --2fs

(Reply to this)


[info]scopo
2008-01-14 11:34 am UTC (link)
there is quite a thread in recent near-future/distopian SF novels that imagines that the US has split into 'blue zones' and 'red zones' or the like (Richard Morgan is the example I have read most recently) -- the 'sensible bits' around the edges (NY, SF, Boston, Seattle, etc) become an outward-looking, hi-tech 'liminal zone' open to new technology, pan-Asian influences, the UN, space exploration, genetic engineering, etc; while 'the heartland' bunkers down into fundamentalism and general backwardness ...

(Reply to this)


[info]chuckdarwin
2008-01-14 12:12 pm UTC (link)
I honestly don't think that most US citizens have the will to do anything about the various problems there. Everyone's position is too entrenched, change happens very slowly, corporations have far too much influence, and many potential voters (revolutionaries?) have so little faith left in 'the system' that they simply fail to act.

I left the US for a number of reasons, but I am trying not to spend all my time criticising it. Americans, even the apathetic lefties I run into online, still get rather arsey about me and my high horse.

I am a very lucky person, and I never lose sight of that fact. Who knows what would've happened to me if I had remained in the US...

Anyway... I agree that the people of the US need to forsake America in order to save it. I just don't ever see it happening. Everyone is too fat and happy.

(Reply to this)


[info]maps_or_guitars
2008-01-14 12:46 pm UTC (link)
I've often thought that a "Free State of Brooklyn" would be a lovely idea, but I fear that post-secession there would be a series of bitter territorial wars between Brooklyn and the borough of Queens, and I have the sinking feeling that the masses of NYPD living in Long Island would come down on the side of Manhattan in the whole thing.

And once you crack open the secessionist nut for the whole country, you suddenly find yourself walking in the company of Branch Davidian Militia Wackjobs, and that makes things much less fun.

(Reply to this)


[info]goddessofjoi
2008-01-14 01:43 pm UTC (link)
I'm pretty bad on my presidential quotes (i've been attributing the one you quoted here to Lincoln, which I'm told is about as wrong as I could possibly get), but I believe the same president also quoted as saying (paraphrased) If gov't is fucking with the constitution, overthrow the government, not the constitution.


All that just to say you probably don't need to forsake America to save it. And it is interesting to see how well the (republican?) candidate running on the Constitution is doing. Now gahdamn, what is his name, and what is that called when your platform is the constitution?

Now that I have thouroughly embarassed myself (my memory is terrible), and undermined my point with oh, not knowing what I am talking about, I'll just go carry on my business.....

(Reply to this)


[info]thebitterguy
2008-01-14 02:16 pm UTC (link)
I'd just like to say we would welcome any of the new southern provinces into the kingdom.

Edited at 2008-01-14 02:16 pm UTC

(Reply to this)


[info]snowy_owlet
2008-01-14 03:12 pm UTC (link)
There is a story I wanted to write that was essentially a fake research paper written however-many-years-from-now about the time when USonians started to simply ignore their government---they started a grassroots confederation of local communities/economies, conducted foreign relations via the Internet, and by going off-grid essentially opted out of national policies, without revolution or agitation but simply by ignoring.

I got bogged down in the details and couldn't make the story work, but I like my little utopian idea, and I suppose it could fall under the auspices of "secession."

(Reply to this)


[info]cataptromancer
2008-01-14 03:48 pm UTC (link)
If part of the goal, as stated in the article, is reducing the power corporations have over our lives and economies, my guess would be that a group of smaller countries would be even more vulnerable to that.

(Reply to this)

umbraticus
(Anonymous)
2008-01-15 10:52 pm UTC (link)
Wot, wot? Nary a mention of Empire, the cause célèbre of countless generations? Think back to the days of yore. . .No petty nationalisms, no bickering about personal identity or self worth, not a whit about politics from those in the cultured classes, which has to be the most shameful social blemish of our times, this obsession with power and influence over our fellow man. Lest we forget, the greatest flowerings of culture occur when the state is at its weakest. It was that gorgeous behemoth of bureaucratic and aristocratic ineptitude, after all, that laid the foundations of our modern world. And so I say let us bring back the Empire! Let Empire strike back at the dying star of obscurity and thrust its loins once more to the fore of government!
Surely tis’ a fine idea m’Lord?

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…