kybkh wrote:According to Pickety, this concentration of wealth in "urban counties" is ill-gotten and needs to be redistributed immediately.
Wealth is not the same as GDP, which is the productive economic activity in the area. #9 on Forbes list of wealthy counties is Hunterdon NJ, which is rural horse country with no productive economy to speak of, just services.
We are only accustomed to dealing with like twenty online personas at a time so when we only have about ten people some people have to be strawmanned in order to advance our same relative go nowhere nonsense positions. -TheReal_ND
In recent years, there has been extensive focus on legal and political conflicts between states and the federal government. Dissenting states seek greater autonomy from federal dictates. Ongoing legal battles over Obamacare and sanctuary cities are just the latest examples of this phenomenon. But we have also seen a less-well known trend of conflict between states and local government. New articles by prominent legal scholars on opposite sides of the political spectrum contend that local governments should have greater autonomy from states. They make a solid case. But actually achieving increased autonomy will not be easy.
. . .
In my view, Reynolds and other commentators may underestimate the potential viability of creating new states through secession. Such efforts are clearly an uphill battle. But state legislatures might agree to them if, as a result, they end up with a more ideologically homogeneous state where currently dominant forces have greater control. Financial incentives might also help lead to agreement - if the newly formed state was willing to give some sort of separation payment or "divorce bill" to its former state government, as the United Kingdom will have to do in order to leave the European Union. Congress, in turn, might consent if secession could be managed in such a way as to avoid altering the partisan balance of power in the Senate. For example, large states such as California and Texas coulld be partitioned in ways that create equal numbers of new Democratic and Republican states. The creation of new states through secession has occurred a few times in American history, as with the establishment of Maine and West Virginia in the nineteenth century. Perhaps the practice can be revived. Still, doing so is unlikely to be either quick or easy.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:32 am
It's not impossible.
Basically, we need to call another convention to do it (realistically). To get a convention, either the GOP has to take over most of the state executive and legislative branches (which they almost did before Trump went neocon and crony capitalist, and now is unlikely), or we need to continue to reciprocate the shitty state coercion the democrats had inflicted upon most of the country for the past eight years so that we can convince a few hard-core leftist states to vote for a convention themselves.
Since Trump became such a raging faggot, I think the most viable alternative is to encourage his insanity and coercive behavior against states like California. He should come down hard on their drug legalization schemes too. Just do everything to them that the democrats constantly try to do to us. Democrats want gun seizures. We need to go full-on drug seizure mode. Democrats want to force people to participate in gay weddings or lose their economic livelihoods, we need to force gay bakers to bake for anti-homo KKK rallies or something even more offensive. Eventually, California at least will be ripe for convention.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:37 am
Also, just put two more judges on the Supreme Court likely to vote against Roe v. Wade (which really could happen). They are going to lose their shit if Trump makes the Supreme Court conservative for twenty years or more.
Postby Speaker to Animals » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:06 am
nmoore63 wrote:I have a hard time seeing how a convention works out well for anybody.
It will be a battle between multiple hyper organized but very extreme minorities.
I am confident that most people would be content with a deescalation of the culture war insofar as we allow regions to govern themselves appropriate to their culture.
I don't really give a shit if California seizes all the private guns in California, and they shouldn't give a shit if we serve trespass warrants in North Carolina to trannies that use the wrong bathroom. It will shake itself out in the end.
I think your concern really is the fact that you pitched your tent in the wrong campground.
Speaker to Animals wrote:
I am confident that most people would be content with a deescalation of the culture war insofar as we allow regions to govern themselves appropriate to their culture.
The people that want to turn down the culture war are not going to show up.
I don't really give a shit if California seizes all the private guns in California, and they shouldn't give a shit if we serve trespass warrants in North Carolina to trannies that use the wrong bathroom. It will shake itself out in the end.
I agree. I am skeptical that their is any sense of a national consensus to this end.
I think your concern really is the fact that you pitched your tent in the wrong campground.
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am confident me and mine will be fine. It was more of a general concern for the wellbeing of my fellow citizens.
You guys are so absorbed in your culture war wanking you still haven't actually thought any of this through, like defining your terms or dealing with the economics of divorcing yourselves from where the wealth is generated. Is the unindustrialized, agrarian, antebellum South really your economic model? What state is currently closest to that? Mississippi? Dead last in GDP per capita.
We are only accustomed to dealing with like twenty online personas at a time so when we only have about ten people some people have to be strawmanned in order to advance our same relative go nowhere nonsense positions. -TheReal_ND