Opinions - USA - How would you feel about a real life confederacy? (please read)

[Swing]

The post about the legislation for legalization of weed brought this up to me. How would you feel about having a Confederacy instead of a Federacy? Think state's rights; the people get to vote for the land they live on and which is closest around them. The idea is that our states would have a constitution almost exactly to the one we have now. Now each state could make thier own ammendments and be almost polar to the state next to it. One of the great ideas they said back in the mid 1800's is that if you don't like how the laws of a state are in the confederacy you can simply move to a state that fits you better. I think our country would almost certainly be divided into states based squarely on the personality of the people living there. Of course there would be a National President but more of a guide that could help with policy and uniformity for things that should be regulated the same in each state. That and as president he would be executive in command of all the states militias and a confederated army with the idea that although each state more closely resembles it's own country with it's own culture, people, and ideas, that at the time of war or if one state was attacked we would have a federally ran army backed by state militias to help and protect our neighbors.

Think how much more important every vote you made would count.

Think how much seriously an issue brought up by you would be looked at.

Think of how much freedom the people could instill in a state.

Now there would definitely be issues at the national level at aggreeing for things if we had a national congress but there could be bills that might make all the states "play nice" with each other to run a sufficiently smooth economy and trade.

I hate racism and hated the idea of slavery but that's gone and never coming back but in the civil war when federal soldiers's asked captured prisoners why they're fighting and dying for the black man and why they won't just give up slavery they replied "Why can't you yanks just leave us alone? We just want to live our way as much as you want to live yours".

So anyways fellow posters how do you feel about state's right's and an actual working confederacy where people like us with the same views could live in the same state or region an live how we want to live?

Swing added 28 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...

Just thought I'd bump this by saying that California has been doing a good job breaking off from Federality but it's a huge state with enough resources to run itself. Also most of the military installations are there so if there ever was a violent succession California itself could keep the war frozen cold because it does have a huge nuke stockpile too. That brings another question. Would you want to do this temporalilly by slowy taking down federal power or if enough people revolted would you be down with stopping negotiatons and just succeeding. DC would never try and fuck up America with weapons either and maybe a shotless revolution could change this unbalanced power that DC holds over all of us.

Sometimes I think the territories of Puerto Rico and American Samoi have it right and they don't care that they can't vote for the next US president and I think that's because we set up our territories almost like a confederated state. They can vote for their local leaders and we don't impose a ton of shit on them.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good topic. Very debatable and engaging.

[purplehaze]

I think we should be working toward the other way, every one in the world should have the same rights.

[old hippie 56]

There were a few reasons other then the slavery issue, that the
South disagreed on and that persuaded them to succeed from the Union.
Basically the North favored a loose interpretation of the United
States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government
increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to
the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements
sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads,
and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects
to be done at all. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a
high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for
the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its
cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a good banking and
currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal
improvements. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they
favored Northern commercial interests.
This excerpt is from a long essay found here:

http://www.cyberessays.com/History/86.htm

[Stephenwolf]

Also the CSA had sent a letter to England and France saying that they would abolish slavery if France and England would recognize them as their own country. Slavery was going to end either way... the North won before England/France responded... Lincoln was also a supporter of the Ship 'Em Back policy, which i don't agree with, and had spent more than a million trying to figure out an effective way to get rid of the black people.

[Swing]

To purplehaze: everybody in the same state would have the same basic rights... and everybody in a confederacy would have the same basic constitutional rights... Maybe in Illinois for example you could cultivate your own farm of marijuana but in Ohio it would be illegal and punishable. Maybe in washington heroin addicts would have access to a heroin maintainence system but in Florida heroin would still be a class A felony. It would be up to the state to decide such things and therefore a state of likeminded people would be successful in achieving what they want and think would need.

[purplehaze]

I understand were you are going with this, that way everyone could have a state they liked basically. But i think that we are all human, and as humans we should all have the same rights. If one human can smoke marijuana why should another one not be able too. There both human, and eventually we should realize everyone in the world is the same and have the identical same rights, as human beings. Thats my point.

[Heretic.Ape.]

The only problem with the "everybody should be able to" argument is the reality of vast swarms of people who want to inflict their own morality and distastes on others. There's always more people saying "everyone act like this" then there are saying "hey, do whatever floats your boat as long as you're not hurting anyone". And morality is a notoriously easy thing to use in manipulating hive consciousness. The original notion of the US was that the states would do their own thing, following a free market ideology in terms of demand. Each was considered it's own social experiment.

[Panthers007]

I agree with Heretic.Ape - it would remain the same and/or get worse in a heartbeat. While each region having it's own ability to instill glorious reforms without interference from "Big Daddy" sounds wonderful - look what happened in the South during the Civil Right's era.

Socrates argued the same thing: That all things are comprised of "forms" of goodness and virtue. This can be easily argued as to know goodness, one must also know what's wrong and evil. Can you see Utah if it could vote a complete, autonomous constitution? Yikes!

[purplehaze]

My theory will not work intill another thousand or so years. But I still stand firm in my opinion, in a perfect world we would all have the same rights, and those rights would be sensible. Do what you want, dont harm others, prosper in whatever field you want. But not likley to happen anytime soon inless human beings change, because different countries have different opinions- hell different states have different opinions, look at Cali.


Can noone agree that all humans should have the same rights, and if it does get broke up into states (probably not) then I guess it's just the luck of the draw on birth were your gonna be. Also if you are born to a country that is poor and doesn't have the economy to prosper in to make enough money to move out then your stuck; can't move to the state you would like.

I guess people think im crazy, or out there when I expect humans to evolve into higher intelligence and these things will just work themselfs out as evolution goes on, no jealousy, truly higher intelligence. The laws will be changed with time, probably many times before we reach perfection, which is far, far off.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well said. I agree.

[Giant Squid]

Originally Posted by purplehaze

My theory will not work intill another thousand or so years. But I still stand firm in my opinion, in a perfect world we would all have the same rights, and those rights would be sensible. Do what you want, dont harm others, prosper in whatever field you want. But not likley to happen anytime soon inless human beings change, because different countries have different opinions- hell different states have different opinions, look at Cali.


Can noone agree that all humans should have the same rights, and if it does get broke up into states (probably not) then I guess it's just the luck of the draw on birth were your gonna be. Also if you are born to a country that is poor and doesn't have the economy to prosper in to make enough money to move out then your stuck; can't move to the state you would like.

I guess people think im crazy, or out there when I expect humans to evolve into higher intelligence and these things will just work themselfs out as evolution goes on, no jealousy, truly higher intelligence. The laws will be changed with time, probably many times before we reach perfection, which is far, far off.

I agree that everybody should be equal, I think this idea is something that would only work in short term. But I don't agree that it would take evolution to bring us to a point to be able to accept this, even now there are people like you and me who think that everyone should be able to do their thing as long as they are responsible about it, problem is what is and isn't "hurting" someone has a very loose definition. Just living your life will cause you to end up getting hurt by other people. I think the kind of thing your talking about is something that can only be attained universally after death but who knows really.

[El Calico Loco]

I'm late to this thread, but I feel obligated to respond. This is a subject near to my heart. Just a few thoughts:

Government is a business, no matter how much we like to pretend that it's otherwise. At its core, It's the business that provides security and contract negotiation within its territory. Most provide other services as well. A government can be said to "own" the territory over which it has jurisdiction.

Monopolies are bad for consumers. They lead to lower quality and higher prices. The larger a government's territory, the more it can behave like a monopoly - because the costs involved in switching one's service provider are much higher (the expense of moving, plus the psychic costs of leaving one's friends and family behind, and possibly having to learn a new language).

The whole point of a decentralized federation (or confederation) is to force governments to face the same discipline that businesses face in the market. It forces governments to compete with one another for labor and capital. This requires, of course, that there be no restrictions on travel or trade between states.

Having a large number of small governments will lead to the existence of communities you do not like. This is true no matter what your moral compass. Theocratic religious folk will hate communities where citizens are allowed to blaspheme and sin. Progressives will hate communities run by theocrats. Marxists will hate free-market areas. Libertarians will hate socialist communes. Et cetera.

To my mind, this is no different than hating an individual for being different from you. I think most on this forum would agree that most individuals (with the exception of the deceptive and violent) ought to be able to live their life as they see fit, even if their lifestyle offends others. Why is this true at the level of the individual and not at the level of the community? I may disagree with the policies of other places, but I recognize the right of the peoples who live in those places to be different from me and mine.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with purplehaze. I want to see a world governed by peace, liberty, and harmony. I would like it if people everywhere were happy and free. I seethe with anger whenever I read about injustice happening anywhere. I simply don't think that it's my business to deal with things going on halfway around the world in Manchuria. I have neither the duty nor the right to solve their problems for them, and they would probably hate me if I tried. Nor do I think that my opinions ought to govern California, since I live in Tejas. I have no right even to tell those in San Antonio how to live, because I'm 90 minutes away.

Why is it wrong for the drug warriors to impose their morality on us, but right for us to impose our morality on others? Sure, we think that we are right - but so do they. At some level, it doesn't even matter who is right and who is wrong. If two people disagree, there are only a few ways they can deal with it: tolerance, persuasion, manipulation, or violence. Most of us don't use violence to force others to believe as we do. We get upset when others do the same to us, as with the War on Fun Drugs. Why is it wrong to do this with a gun, but perfectly acceptable to vote for others to do so? Why is this wrong at the level of individuals, but acceptible at the level of politics?

The same is true of disagreements between sets of people, such as communities or nations. Choosing violence gives us war and empire. Decentralization will probably lead to some injustice at the local level, but I'll take a thousand Boss Hoggs over one Hitler or Stalin. At least it would be easier for refugees to escape to a better place.


ECL

[Panthers007]

A French farmer, who had lived during World War II, was asked what he thought about the re-unification of Germany in 1991. He said he opposed it. When he was asked if he liked the idea of their being two Germany's, he replied: "Two? I would like it better if there were two hundred!"

In a perfect world your master-plan, Mr. Marx, would be great. But I'm sorry to say - you will have a good, long time to iron out the bugs.

[Lobsang]

In a perfect world your master-plan, Mr. Marx, would be great. But I'm sorry to say - you will have a good, long time to iron out the bugs.

Correct. But I suspect that it may be the only way that will work. yes absolutely there would be incredible chaos. But in a couple of hundred years the dust would settle and we might be better off.

[Spare Chaynge]

swim supports a confederacy. for the fact that if he did not like a drug law or gun law he could move to a different state.. some sort of trade laws and money system would have to be uniform... but the federal government would not have implied powers.. for example the federal gov shut down a lot of legalization of marijuana laws because it affected the feds ability to regulate interstate commerce.

[ShawnD]

Isn't a confederacy what the Europeans are shooting for? While each country has its own rules, the European Union has a bunch of rules that everyone follows.

I've never really liked federalism. The US is split between north and south on just about everything, and Canada has a similar problem between east and west. If culture is regional, then why would several different regions have the exact same laws? All that does is make everyone hate the government. Liberals think it's too conservative, conservatives think it's too liberal.

If it was all done on a state/province level, I think that would be a lot more interesting. If you don't like the rules in one place, just move to another.

[Panthers007]

The Iriquois Confederacy consisted of 6 nations. It was this that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written from. Then they came to slaughter the 6 nations.

[Swing]

I remember the iriqouis nation. However any way you look at marxism it will always fail... the idea we have to put somebody in complete charge and rely totally on them before glorious communism will suddendly spring up like a great new age 1950's crazy like baby boom would give me a nice LoL. Every "communist" country you see is merely just a cabinent of leaders stuck in socialism with now wa out *cough*ceptoverpopulationandoverbalanceintrade*cou gh*. Hitler and Stalin were really just pretty much just 2 violently insane obsessed men that had almost the same government that propagated some fake views that left basically each mad man in charge to kill the most people in WW2.
Personally even in America I don't like the thought of unions as they really do have an underdriving red push behind them and you can see how they keep the prolateriat happy but i think some strong unions carve us up. I would just like to see a confederated system slowly and non violently rise up that might actually do good since we've really never had a TRUE confederacy... the CSA in the Civil War was so outnumbered and gunned technologically im surprised they last as long as they did and glad not a second longer. But what we could learn from their supreme court and senate meetings is that they fought amongst each other a lot and each state wanted to tend to go off in it's own way. I think we could come up with solutions for that and a strong unified CSA wouldn't be off bickerin at a time of war. Anyways back to studying for my phlebotomy exam tonite geeereffsefffe

[purplehaze]

I'm not expressing marxism, I'm not sure if you're refering to karl marx or groucho marx or who else. My views are my own, maybe not entirely original, but I'm not aware of the people who have my views either, call me dumb on this one.

But why do we have to have a leader, if we just had police stations with real by term peace officers we wouldn't need leaders.

But who would set the laws? The people, once we evolve and lose jealousy and stop argueing by nature we will work towards a resolution.

Bottom line, I don't think one man is any better than another and therefor should not be granted the power of the world. That's ignorant IMO.

[umbra1010]

This country already has been through a confederacy style government and it did fail miserably. Do some research on the articles of confederation.

A little fun fact is george washington was not the first president in the US. There were a few before him in the "articles of confederation" era.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Learned something new today!

[Laszlo1]

Umbra makes a good point, the articles of confederation age america was a complete mess. Basically it was a laughing stock for europe. States printed their own currency and laws were so varied from one state to another. In theory, I love the idea of a confederacy, small/no government, direct input by the people, etc. but history shows that that type of ruling doesn't usually get very far. I don't know, maybe it is still worth a shot. You can also look at it as a trade off. Personal freedom and large scale chaos v. Personal restraint and large scale order. It's sort of a classic scenario.

[ShawnD]

Originally Posted by Laszlo1

States printed their own currency

I hope you're not talking about colonial script. That was actually a very successful form of money since it was not backed by debt (present day US dollars are backed by debt) nor was it backed by reserves (gold). Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography that British parliament outlawing paper money was the sole cause of the American Revolution.

[umbra1010]

Originally Posted by ShawnD

I hope you're not talking about colonial script. That was actually a very successful form of money since it was not backed by debt (present day US dollars are backed by debt) nor was it backed by reserves (gold). Ben Franklin wrote in his autobiography that British parliament outlawing paper money was the sole cause of the American Revolution.

no, he was not talking about colonial script. In the articles of confederation style government, the states did actually make their own coins. Money in Massachussets was not the same as money in georgia etc. Paper money was not used that heavily (if at all) in the US during the AoC era.

[Politicalchalk]

Swim's two cents here is a matter of idealism vs. reality. The framers of the constitution had unique, revolutionary ideas. The confederacy was pissed because the north was telling them how to run their economy. The north was pissed because of obvious human rights abuses.

Here we run into the concept of a "social contract" -- the idea that one gives up clear and undeniable freedoms for the protection of a unified group: strength in numbers; united we stand, divided we fall. As a public interest advocate, Swim strongly supports the idea of states rights. However, today's "Age of Terrorism" has people so scared shitless that most are willing to outright give up their civil liberties to protect themselves against, not tyranny, but perceived explosions. Fear is a powerful political tool.

Way back when the US was just a loose-connection of rural, farming communities, there was a precursor to the Constitution: the Articles of Confederation. it ultimately failed because no one could agree. Swim does think state's rights should supersede federal control, but contemporary circumstances simply prevent it.

The best bet is the Montivendo Convention on the rights of soverign states. In order to declare yourself a sovereign nation, one needs 4 requirements (which the US signed): 1)defined territory 2)permenant population 3)government and 4)the capacity to enter into states of relation with other nations.

Instead of seceding, legislative reform is the most realistic option. Call your senators, canvass your neighborhood, start a petition. People don't think this works, but Swim knows it can be effective: he was able to change the vote of a certain local politician from "no" to "yes" by lobbying him on a specific issue swim feels strongly about.

Democracy in action. Currently, it's the best available.

[Lobsang]

Well Alaska was always very independent of the feds. And before it was a state it was extremely independent. The feds were not wanted. And back in the 1940s or so in the Mat-Su valley there was a money issued. Called a "Bingle". I am not sure about the spelling. But it as I remember could only be spent there.

A lot of Alaskans fought tooth and nail to keep the federal government out. Now a lot has changed but there are still quite a few people in the state thatreject federal authority. And in a lot of places the feds have little authority because they just do not go certain places very much. So you can hide from the feds pretty good in rural Alaska. I mean there are only a few federal marshalls. And they rarely are found anywhere outdside the city. Unless you have done some major crime. Then they might get off their ass and look for you.

You know we use to get these checks every year from the state. Every person did. From the profits of resources. The checks are still issued but they are pretty small I think. Well the IRS use to not be able to lean your check for taxes. The state protected you. But not any damn more. The IRS will take it

I mean Alaska was so independent and still has the spirit to a degree. For example not so many years ago. Maybe like 8 years. There was a public referendum. Now marijuana was already made legal by public vote years ago and by the state constitution. Then it was voted out. But still was legal by constitution. But then not many people outside the state know that like 8 years ago there was a referendum to make marijuana legal for ALL reasons. Commericial, industrial, recreational. It would have been legal to grow commercially and be sold in stores.

Well the voters stopped it so it did not happen. But it was within an inch of happening. Now that would have meant that the large marijuana production facilities in the state would have simply shifted from illegal to legal. Because they alredady are there. A lot of people know where they are. But not much is done. It is considered a "boarderline" industry. So if you get caust growing extreme quantities you will basically get slapped on the wrist by the state. But if the feds want to get involved you are screwed. So the state of Alaska could give you 6 months in jail and the feds could give you 20 years.

I mean I remember when a guy with a ton of pot being grown indoors caused a major fire in Juneau. The district attorney stated that he would fined for "improper wireing".

But over a period of time I watched federal intervention move in. A lot of this is because new families are moving in from the lower 48. And they bring this spirit of federal control with them. While many of us were saying just leave us the fuck alone! I mean we were appauld that we had to pay tax at all. Much less the IRS leaning outr pay checks or tellin us where we could and could not fish.

[Panthers007]

The problem with Alaska is, though quasi-independent of the Feds, very much right-wing in it's track record. If it were independent, I can see it being run like a "Banana Republic" - with the Native People's having no rights and the economy geared towards a Bush Utopia.