Breaking up the United States

[Justwin]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

In what way?

I think the best argument against the non-aggression principle and libertarian thought is the idea that if we could save 30 million people by giving you a scratch on your finger, the non-aggression principle would say we shouldn't do it. I say this and consider myself pretty libertarian.

Things don’t have to be taken to extremes. Just leave people alone. Don’t try to control or coerce at a federal level.

You will get zero argument from me on that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

In what way?

I think the best argument against the non-aggression principle and libertarian thought is the idea that if we could save 30 million people by giving you a scratch on your finger, the non-aggression principle would say we shouldn't do it. I say this and consider myself pretty libertarian.

Things don’t have to be taken to extremes. Just leave people alone. Don’t try to control or coerce at a federal level.

Which groups of people would you say the federal government is controlling?

[nicname]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

In what way?

I think the best argument against the non-aggression principle and libertarian thought is the idea that if we could save 30 million people by giving you a scratch on your finger, the non-aggression principle would say we shouldn't do it. I say this and consider myself pretty libertarian.

Things don’t have to be taken to extremes. Just leave people alone. Don’t try to control or coerce at a federal level.

Which groups of people would you say the federal government is controlling?

All

[Spracne]

What does the federal government do to control YOU, nic?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, I pretty much do whatever I want, whenever I want to do it. Wouldn't say I feel very controlled. I'd agree that immigrants are excessively controlled.

[Spracne]

I much prefer my government control at the state level, personally 

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'd say women are pretty controlled in Texas and most southern states. Trans people are also very controlled in the south. But that's state control, not federal.

[Justwin]

I definitely have a good portion of my money that gets controlled by the federal government.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I definitely have a good portion of my money that gets controlled by the federal government.

Have you looked into moving somewhere with lower federal taxes? Seems like there are more cons than pros everywhere I've looked.

[Justwin]

I definitely have a good portion of my money that gets controlled by the federal government.

Have you looked into moving somewhere with lower federal taxes? Seems like there are more cons than pros everywhere I've looked.

Nope.

[Kat Kid]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

In what way?

I think the best argument against the non-aggression principle and libertarian thought is the idea that if we could save 30 million people by giving you a scratch on your finger, the non-aggression principle would say we shouldn't do it. I say this and consider myself pretty libertarian.

Well where did the property come from?

All minerals, land, most factories and a lot of labor violates the principle.

The really kooky stuff is the libertarians that think parents don’t owe any obligations to children. It is just a rotten philosophy in general in my view.

[MakeItRain]

The southern states would be on par with Mexico, maybe a little weaker economically.

People in Mississippi would be four times richer on average than people in Mexico.

People in Mississippi would be at least four times poorer than they are today.

Bingo.

The states wouldn't fail but the poor people in those states would be in a horrible way and the non poor would absolutely thrive.

[MakeItRain]

As usual, James Baldwin has the last word for us on this issue:

https://twitter.com/blackrepublican/status/1509591895873306632?s=20

I like it

You should read Baldwin

[MakeItRain]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

In what way?

I think the best argument against the non-aggression principle and libertarian thought is the idea that if we could save 30 million people by giving you a scratch on your finger, the non-aggression principle would say we shouldn't do it. I say this and consider myself pretty libertarian.

Things don’t have to be taken to extremes. Just leave people alone. Don’t try to control or coerce at a federal level.

Fantastic way for the rich and powerful to horde more money and power and that wouldn't just squeeze out the poor either.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

Doesn’t the whole libertarian argument like completely crumble when you go through the thought experiment of “what happens if I have an accident and need to go to a hospital in a libertarian run society?”

[Kat Kid]

Doesn’t the whole libertarian argument like completely crumble when you go through the thought experiment of “what happens if I have an accident and need to go to a hospital in a libertarian run society?”

Remember when Rand Paul’s argument against Obama care was that doctors would be forced to take patients which made it Slavery?

[CNS]

The libertarian argument only works if your wildly rich and the rest of the country isn’t libertarian.

[Dugout DickStone]

The libertarian argument only works if your wildly rich and the rest of the country isn’t libertarian.

dream scenario right there

[cfbandyman]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

All libertarian thought unravels at some point cause they always have a pet peeve/but to their "leave me alone" they would rather have the gubment do.

[Justwin]

You guys are too much.


Minimalist fed gov
Mutual defense (I prefer no standing army, just a bunch of state guard units)
Protect free trade among the states
States can form blocks to work together for various issues, social services
Protect the individual rights  (people not corps)
Non-aggression principle

A homogeneous culture is neither feasible or desirable imo

I’ve not thought this through

Non aggression principle and property rights don’t really play nicely together and is the thread that very quickly unravels libertarian thought once you tug on it.

All libertarian thought unravels at some point cause they always have a pet peeve/but to their "leave me alone" they would rather have the gubment do.

What political/moral philosophy doesn't unravel at some point?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yeah, it's better to not try to shoehorn yourself ideologically and take things issue by issue.

[sys]

Doesn’t the whole libertarian argument like completely crumble when you go through the thought experiment of “what happens if I have an accident and need to go to a hospital in a libertarian run society?”

no?

i can think a lot of cases in which a pure libertarian ideology is wildly unrealistic or incompatible with modern society, but a person needing to contract with a willing provider for a desired service isn't one of them.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Doesn’t the whole libertarian argument like completely crumble when you go through the thought experiment of “what happens if I have an accident and need to go to a hospital in a libertarian run society?”

no?

i can think a lot of cases in which a pure libertarian ideology is wildly unrealistic or incompatible with modern society, but a person needing to contract with a willing provider for a desired service isn't one of them.

Yeah, there would be something like ambulance service for people who can afford it and some guy willing to transport people in the tailgate of his pickup truck for a whole lot cheaper.

[Pete]

Everyone should stick together because the sum is greater than the parts, imo.  Divorce would hurt red states and blue states.  Red states probably more.  But I mean, the coalition of red states wouldn't become third world or something.  Pretty dumb notion.

What would happen to the dollar?  Who would back our debt?  Who is “our?”

I think the currencies of both would deflate at such a rate that we’d see Great Depression levels of unemployment. 

So, not third world, but pretty god damn bad.

[Pete]

Most people you know would lose their jobs.