Posted on 02/27/2017 10:47:59 AM PST by Mozilla
At what point do we break up the USA?
If your answer is “NEVER!” accompanied by some version of “How could you even consider seriously considering such a thing?!”, then you are a cultist.
An Americultist.
For the non-Americultists out there, the question – and it is an important one – stands:
At what point do we break up the USA?
How about at the point DC enforces a policy of open, systematic, “legal” child sacrifice?
Nope.
That’s been going on for decades. We’re apparently not willing to stand against the America Idol over that one.
What about the DC-imposed obliteration of marriage and the DC-enforced imposition of “gay marriage” across the land?
Nah, we won’t cut ourselves loose even after that.
The bottom line seems to be, for now anyway, that we’re way too thoroughly programmed, pimped out, and dependent on the DC-centered American Welfare/Warfare State for us to even consider severing the chains that we’ve come to love and depend upon.
But for more and more people, the question is building.
If we won’t break up the DC-centered State now, when will we?
What would push us over the line?
What would force us to finally say “no” and “goodbye” to American Statism?
There has to be a line somewhere, doesn’t there?
If not, we really are slaves, aren’t we?
We really are the most desperate and pathetic sort of cultists.
But if there is a point at which most of us can agree that secession or some other sort of solid, complete separation from DC power would become necessary, shouldn’t we be thinking now about what that point actually is?
Now consider this: What if, after beginning this thought process in a serious manner (many of us for the first time), we came to realize that the hard, impassable lines that we should set for secession or some similar thing were actually lines that were passed long ago by DC?
What if we came to realize that DC-imposed child sacrifice, “gay marriage”, and gender obliteration were more than enough to warrant – and even require – our leaving the DC-fueled anti-Christian empire?
What if along the way we realized that we actually should have broken up this DC beast a very long time ago?
Something to think about.
In order to help with this thought process, I want to share with you now another excellent article from the Mises Wire, simply titled Break Up the USA.
Check this out:
“Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.
Case in point: everyone takes for granted that it’s normal for a country of 320 million to be dictated to by a single central authority. The only debate we’re permitted to have is who should be selected to carry out this grotesque and inhumane function.
Here’s the debate we should be having instead: what if we simply abandoned this quixotic mission, and went our separate ways? It’s an idea that’s gaining traction — much too late, to be sure, but better late than never.
For a long time it seemed as if the idea of secession was unlikely to take hold in modern America. Schoolchildren, after all, are told to associate secession with slavery and treason. American journalists treat the idea as if it were self-evidently ridiculous and contemptible (an attitude they curiously do not adopt when faced with US war propaganda, I might add).
And yet all it took was the election of Donald Trump for the alleged toxicity of secession to vanish entirely. The left’s principled opposition to secession and devotion to the holy Union went promptly out the window on November 8, 2016. Today, about one in three Californians polled favors the Golden State’s secession from the Union.
In other words, some people seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be abandoned.
It’s true that most leftists have not come around to this way of thinking. Many have adopted the creepy slogan “not my president” – in other words, I may not want this particular person having the power to intervene in all aspects of life and holding in his hands the ability to destroy the entire earth, but I most certainly do want someone else to have those powers.
Not exactly a head-on challenge to the system, in other words. (That’s what we libertarians are for.) The problem in their view is only that the wrong people are in charge.
Indeed, leftists who once said “small is beautiful” and “question authority” had little trouble embracing large federal bureaucracies in charge of education, health, housing, and pretty much every important thing. And these authorities, of course, you are not to question (unless they are headed by a Trump nominee, in which case they may be temporarily ignored).
Meanwhile, the right wing has been calling for the abolition of the Department of Education practically since its creation in 1979. That hasn’t happened, as you may have noticed. Having the agency in Republican hands became the more urgent task.
Each side pours tremendous resources into trying to take control of the federal apparatus and lord it over the whole country.
How about we call it quits?
No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.
Radical, yes, and surely not a perspective we were exposed to as schoolchildren. But is it so unreasonable? Is it not in fact the very height of reason and good sense? And some people, we may reasonably hope, may be prepared to consider these simple and humane questions for the very first time.
Now can we imagine the left actually growing so unhappy as to favor secession as a genuine solution?
Here’s what I know. On the one hand, the left made its long march through the institutions: universities, the media, popular culture. Their intention was to remake American society. The task involved an enormous amount of time and wealth. Secession would amount to abandoning this string of successes, and it’s hard to imagine them giving up in this way after sinking all those resources into the long march.
At the same time, it’s possible that the cultural elite have come to despise the American bourgeoisie so much that they’re willing to treat all of that as a sunk cost, and simply get out.
Whatever the case may be, what we can and should do is encourage all decentralization and secession talk, such that these heretofore forbidden options become live once again.
I can already hear the objections from Beltway libertarians, who are not known for supporting political decentralization. To the contrary, they long for the day when libertarian judges and lawmakers will impose liberty on the entire country. And on a more basic level, they find talk of states’ rights, nullification, and secession – about which they hold the most exquisitely conventional and p.c. views – to be sources of embarrassment.
How are they going to rub elbows with the Fed chairman if they’re associated with ideas like these?
Of course we would like to see liberty flourish everywhere. But it’s foolish not to accept more limited victories and finite goals when these are the only realistic options.
The great libertarians – from Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe — have always favored political decentralization; F.A. Hayek once said that in the future liberty was more likely to flourish in small states. This is surely the way forward for us today, if we want to see tangible changes in our lifetimes. . . “
Something to think about.
And something to encourage others to think about.
At every opportunity.
Through actual conversations.
Really.
Right now. (Or yesterday, ideally.)
It’s way past time that we got in gear on this, so let’s start asking and answering important questions that we’ve been programmed to ignore and avoid for far too long.
Questions like:
At what point do we break up the USA?
Article reposted with permission from Fire Breathing Christian
Well, there are several states that I wouldn't miss, and a whole lot of leftist libs that I'd like to get rid of, but I'm not willing to let a bunch of foreigners like Soros, 0bama and the mexican hordes destroy MY Country!
See how they yell and stomp their feet, forcing their ideology on the rest of us. Not concerned at all about some losing jobs,(Brandon Eich) careers, going to jail on false accusations,(AK Senator Stevens(?) and Tom Delay,)and losing business' and homes.(the florist and cake baker in OR and WA)
Look how Obama ruled along with his cabinet members and lieutenants. Just at the EPA alone, sue and settle, tons of environmental groups board members hired at the EPA, to force by decree, you do not own your land serfs, we have the final say. Leftists are the worst on property rights.
keep ‘em separated.
Discussion of breaking up the USA is obfuscation of the need to actually follow its constitution and dispose of the bags of shit actively working to destroy it.
A voice of reason...
There is no way to enslave a man whose mind is free.
you say, “United we stand.
Divided we fall.
Simple as that..................”
But it is not that simple. What should be done if the passengers learn that the crew of the ship are drilling holes in the hull, and otherwise sabotaging the ship, the engine, the sails?
At some point we will not be able to patch it up fast enough. What then? Go down with the ship? Mutiny?
These are serious and legitimate questions to your canned and flippant remark.
The North didn't go to war to end slavery. As late as August of 1862, Lincoln was still willing to let the South keep slavery. What he wasn't willing to do was to allow the South to engage in European trade without paying the Union Tariffs.
The Threat to the North was not slavery, it was money. The South accounted for 3/4ths of all the European trade in 1860, but 40% of all the South produced income ended up in New York.
If the South became independent, that 40% extra profit would have financed industries that would have competed with Northern Industries. It would have wreaked economic havoc on the North Eastern industrialists, so the Union could not afford to allow the South to become economically independent.
The war was really over money, but the propaganda war made it appear as if the fight was over slavery.
Yes, because the North did want to end the practice because slavery is an evil (and indefensible) practice.
Yes, the North did want to end the practice because slavery is an evil (and indefensible) practice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.