Is the US splitting up?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Over years, decades,centuries, millenia the government would reduce the amount of laws until there was no government. That is the only path that would be sure to suceed. The level of technology and education would be very high then IMO.

edit on 4-11-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

You know, you are starting to sound like the ultimate ATS boogeyman: Karl Marx. This is exactly what he argued. Government would fade away as humans no longer required it. The only difference between the two of you is that he was not beyond using the power of collective will to bring about that change.

reply to post by antonia

If you were correct in your first statement then you wouldn't see people like the Unabomber or the Norway killer who could not tolerate the "collectives". You keep arguing from duality, but there is no duality here. Collectives are made up of individuals. The two cannot be divorced. The conflict is not between "collectivists" and "indivdualists". It is simply between two collectives with competing ideals.

Two psychos can't kill 100 million plus people the way the collectivists did.

Actually, the plasticity and impresicion of language is the reason the privileges granted to you by your collective will never last. If they would last you wouldn't need to define them, everybody would just live that way.

reply to post by antonia

You know, you are starting to sound like the ultimate ATS boogeyman: Karl Marx. This is exactly what he argued. Government would fade away as humans no longer required it. The only difference between the two of you is that he was not beyond using the power of collective will to bring about that change.

Yes communism will happen someday. It might be called free will by then.

If you can find people to run a collective as it should be run you might as well have a feudal monarchy.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by antonia

 

t. If they would last you wouldn't need to define them, everybody would just live that way.

Except everyone doesn't "live that way". You are arguing something that has never existed. People have always lived in different ways and the conflict comes when others try to force that way of life on others. In a way you would be doing the same thing by splitting up the country-"Live this way or get out". You would just form a new collective and enforce the ideals by kicking those unlike yourself out.

Sometimes I think so.
Mostly I hope I'm just being paranoid or overly sensitive.
I worry though.

Collectivism is a progressive vision designed for state control ,aka state subservience.By definition Communism.Communism is a failed form of government that the US will not tolerate. To say one is identified by all is a failure of base logic,defining prejudice at it's root.Collectivism creates "Us not You" ,but saying WE are "might makes right" is juvenile pedantic and completely philosophically uninformed about traditional American values.The eastern world predominates this philosophy as do their lack of life values. Pragmatism?Differing culture?Not according to history.
There is a reason why children run TO American and western forces and away from Russian,Chinese and Islamic forces.

God I so wish Texas would secede I really do then we can push all the "individualists" in there and let them dog eat dog each other and refuse to sell them drinking water once they ruined theirs. It is a dream of mine.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yes, that is exactly what has happened. There are two completely different worlds in America - and both are extreme. Both are listening to completely different news outlets and socially isolating each other from the other group.

I grew up in a religious family, but I went to an extremely liberal college. At any rate, I can shift between worlds but they are quite different.

I suggest dividing the US on lines of dominiated by Zionists/Israel and not dominated. the other divisions mentioned in this thread are all disguises for this dichotomy.
NYC/DC is the core of the Zionist division.

reply to post by antonia

Originally posted by antonia
The problem here is you are attracting people who can't see the other side as human.

...That is just stupid....

Is being a Liberal or a Conservative enough to earn your hate?

I completely agree.

I married the opposite party...27+ years strong....so I agree most people have really lost it by demonizing the other side.

It's a consequence of an ignorant electorate and our soundbite culture.

Really depressing at times...

Communism is the ultimate disguise for the bankster elite. while the communist government says it is acting for the collective good, it is actually using government police powers to take all "surplus value" from the workers through interest payments and taxes and giving it to the international banksters... who then use the money to corrupt the military and political leadership.
The Zionists are the current buffer between the bankster elite and the US populace.
But the UN is getting ready to replace the Zionists... take a look at where AIPAC money is going in this election.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

I suppose some people are natural born collectivists, would not exploit each other, and would live in perpetual harmony and comfort. They would make thier own place in an individualistic society.

Correct! Thanks for acknowledging that we exist, even here in America.

Sadly, we are too few. And since most people seem to think "things will never change", I am forced to say I agree. As long as there are people who refuse to even entertain the idea, things won't change.

Worse still, there are people who entertain the idea, and then say, "HELL, no! Not in my five multi-million-dollar backyardS, or the marina where my yacht sits, or the hangar where my jet's parked, or the garage where my seven luxury automobiles are garaged, or the country club and golf course where I lounge! NO WAY!"

*sigh*
It makes me sad.

reply to post by DrGod

EDIT:
Here is a start








The greater State of Jefferson.
www.jeffersonstate.com...

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah but Europe is not actually " a country", and plenty of the countries in Europe are younger than the USA - eg Belgium, Poland, the Baltic States, Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Byelorus, Moldovia, all the states of the former Yugoslavia, even Yugoslavia itself, Albania, Czech Republic & Slovakia (& Czechoslovakia (sp??) before them)

Of course looking at many of those I suspect you wouldn't get inspired by them!!

Well, I didn't mean to say Europe was a country. That was my mistake, rather that many of the countries within Europe are older than the U.S. Actually, I think many of those young countries benefit from being closer to older examples. Norway and Finland rank among the highest in the world for their standard of living so they can't be all bad.

I agree with much of what you said prior to this, but many of those "older countries" in Europe are not older as unified nations and their system of governance is younger than that of the US. Better check your European history facts.

I do not think a sepration will happen. Tptb have no interest in disorder unless it comes in the form of war, which for the us there is a process for succession which does not necessitate a violent outcome. A succession will effect economies, possibly throwing the fragile global scheme out of the facade of balance it has now leading to uprisings. This is meant to be prevented so that while tptb distract you with one hand full of pennies, they steel your future through rent seeking and speculation with the other. Presidents have warned of an unfettered financial industry producing nothing but higher prices and fees, in my view they were right and this particular form of capitalism is a woefully inadequate allocator of capital.

Liberalism and or the left ( as some chose to conflate the two ) are not synonymous with the state. You can't paint the right with the dominionist brush, so don't do it to us liberals either...

I do think there needs to be a reorganization of our society. The political landscape is too diverse to be represented in its' current form. The elections, especially presidential are a joke. The ideal form of government IMO is representative republic based of the Dunbar number.

What this looks like is a computer sciene idea of a tree... Where the leaves are a group of 100 ( a conservative estimate of the Dunbar number ), each group electes a representative into the next group of 100... And so on until you get to a single group of 100 at the top. How many times do you have to be elected to be in the top group, no more than 6 times... This structure would replace the current legislature and possibly the executive, with a judicial component. In the near future there are two technologies that are coming out that will effect our society in profound ways, one is wireless power transmission through longitudinal waves ( see Konstantin meyl ) and lenr reactors ( see Rossi, celani, and zeolite lenr reactor ).

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by antonia

Two psychos can't kill 100 million plus people the way the collectivists did.

With less to lose financially from the exchange, and we having outlived our usefulness more
every minute by WAKING UP and IDENTIFYING the real button pushers--
who's to stop the two psychos from pushing their red buttons when they're dug in and safe?
I respectfully submit classical psychopathy is a dangerous condition to underestimate. The
Samson Option itself is the last resort of the totalitarian. Enjoy your broiled Baphomet Burger...

I've been doing a lot of thinking latley about how the USA is organized.

I think that the USA needs to be broken into at least 4 countries, regionally.

Someone in Alabama has vastly opposite needs than say, a person in Washington. How can a federal government please everyone and provide for the needs of the people when we are so diverse?

This of course comes back to "states rights" -- unfortunatley, most states don't generate enough income to take over many of the roles that the Federal Government handles.

Perhaps 3-5 regional "countries" that still fall under the supervison of a weaker, looser Federal Gov. aka similar to the "European Union" or Canadian provinces. I think people would get a higher quality of government more suited to their geographic, social, and economic needs.

I don't know, I haven't fleshed out any of the details yet -- just an idea had!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I've been saying for a long time that the tensions in the USA are three-fold.

You have racial tensions, with entire areas of cities almost ghettos for minorities, and unchanged in decades when it comes to poverty.
Then you have the economic divide, with millions living on the poverty line and others living it up in the extreme.
Then you have the political divide, which is becoming increasingly violent and extreme in language and rhetoric.

While other nations might have problems when it comes to religion, or economic divide, the USA is split on all three fronts when it comes to race, economic situation and political divide.

Because the USA has only a two party system, it is inevitable that as each side raises the bar when it comes to rhetoric and attacks on the other, you end up in a spiral, with people following the spiral themselves and communities becoming increasingly divided.

I really don't think most Americans realize how dangerous this really is. You look at places like Libya and their tribal warfare, and the US is pretty much the same, only without the massive violence - yet.

You've turned your political system in a sports match, with the most radicalised fans ready to jump at each others throats when they get the opportunity.

I firmly believe that when (not if) the US experiences a prolonged internal civil problem the states will divide and you will experience another civil war, with red and blue states fighting each other.

The American people are polarized between the two parties. Sure there are plenty who refuse to take part of be swayed into the game, but there are a hell of a lot of radicals out there, in government too, who would jump at the opportunity to "seize" the nation or split it down the middle.

In all honesty, I am for smaller government, and I have believed for a long time that you cannot effectively manage a large nation with one government. There needs to be accountability and access to leadership, and the larger the community being governed the less chance of accountability there is.

It's no surprise to me that smaller nations with a smaller government that is more open has more trust amongst its people, with a higher quality of life, better living conditions, better education, better health systems...

I think the US is too big. It should be split. I think the government at state level is weak when overseen by such a vast bureaucracy, they are almost inconsequential. There should be two US governments, with states beneath them, able to more adequately meet the needs of their people with a smaller community to govern and a smaller federal level government above them.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Perhaps it won't be "The United States of America" -- but rather just "America" with regional areas tacked onto the front, example:

"Southern America"
"North Eastern America"
"South Western America"
"Midwest America"
"North West America"

Each of those "areas" would be it's own country, with the respectice states keeping their original borders. A smaller, looser federal government would oversee the currency/defense of the N. American continent -- but the majority of government would be left to these regional zones.

I think we'd find people migrating to areas that socially agree with them.