I don't think I'd mind seeing one of these states, be it New Hampshire or Texas, decide to stage their own version of Brexit just to demonstrate the value being a member of the United States brings them. Let NH or TX exit, admit Puerto Rico at the same time (so we don't have to redo the flag or the Senate seating arrangements). We can let them see how well they do raising their own armies, negotiating their own trade deals, etc.
Texas might have a fighting chance of being a sustainable nation in their own right - what do the folks in New Hampshire think will keep them afloat / relevant?
A hypothetical secession of a US state or two would have me comparing and contrasting that with how some of the post-Soviet republics fared after they became independent countries. I think like the post Soviet states, a seceded US state would find themselves economically dependent on the remainder of the US, and experience many inconveniences they wouldn't experience as a US state. Since it would be a breakaway state from a country with a market based capitalist economy, I don't think their economy would experience a devalued free fall like post Soviet Russia as it transitioned from a centrally planned economy to one market based. A big difference is that these Soviet SSRs were politically constituted based on ethnic groups(Ukrainians, Estonians, Kazakhs, etc), which isn't the case with any of the 50 US states. So there wouldn't motivation to secede or remain seceded due to ethnic or economic resentment. Everyone knew the RSFSR(Russia) ruled the show in the Soviet Union, and many of the smaller SSRs were far more impoverished. No US state suffers such economic disparity like that. In short, the post Soviet states had many justifiable and rational reasons to secede and become independent countries. There was no real incentive to for these countries to not declare independence. But for US states, the benefits of staying in a country constitutionally premised on Federalism would far outweigh any potential benefits of being an independent seceded country.
So even if the unthinkable happened and a state or two seceded today, it won't be long before they beg to be reinstated in our great country.
Jan 28, 2022·edited Jan 28, 2022Liked by Chris J. Karr
There would be little or no secessionist sentiment if the Constitution was strictly followed. Our day-to-day lives would be governed primarily by state laws instead of federal laws. Activist courts and allowing bureaucrats to determine the details of legislation has expanded the role of the federal government way beyond its legitimate bounds. Government is inefficient because it is too far removed from the voters. The 17th. Amendment has done nothing to help the situation. Congress is almost useless.
Do you think that the any of this secessionist talk in NH is being egged on by the Free State Project folks? I've heard a lot about this movement, aiming to have thousands settle in the state. I'd probably support some of their objectives minus secession. Libertarians have some solid ideas that I could get behind. The problem is that many of them take it to illogical extremes, especially when it comes to issues of sovereignty and foreign affairs. They would find a more receptive audience and common ground on many issues pertaining to restraining the size and scope of the government, and promoting economic freedom. The problem is that some libertarians kind of show some intransigence(not unlike many progressive leftists and the MAGA right), that either you are 100 percent on board with them, or you are a "neocon statist warmonger"(which I find amusing).
Overall from what I read about New Hampshire, it seems to have a sensible libertarian lean to their governance and politics, while remaining a swing state. NH voters appear to be smart enough to keep it to sensible levels.
I don't think I'd mind seeing one of these states, be it New Hampshire or Texas, decide to stage their own version of Brexit just to demonstrate the value being a member of the United States brings them. Let NH or TX exit, admit Puerto Rico at the same time (so we don't have to redo the flag or the Senate seating arrangements). We can let them see how well they do raising their own armies, negotiating their own trade deals, etc.
Texas might have a fighting chance of being a sustainable nation in their own right - what do the folks in New Hampshire think will keep them afloat / relevant?
A hypothetical secession of a US state or two would have me comparing and contrasting that with how some of the post-Soviet republics fared after they became independent countries. I think like the post Soviet states, a seceded US state would find themselves economically dependent on the remainder of the US, and experience many inconveniences they wouldn't experience as a US state. Since it would be a breakaway state from a country with a market based capitalist economy, I don't think their economy would experience a devalued free fall like post Soviet Russia as it transitioned from a centrally planned economy to one market based. A big difference is that these Soviet SSRs were politically constituted based on ethnic groups(Ukrainians, Estonians, Kazakhs, etc), which isn't the case with any of the 50 US states. So there wouldn't motivation to secede or remain seceded due to ethnic or economic resentment. Everyone knew the RSFSR(Russia) ruled the show in the Soviet Union, and many of the smaller SSRs were far more impoverished. No US state suffers such economic disparity like that. In short, the post Soviet states had many justifiable and rational reasons to secede and become independent countries. There was no real incentive to for these countries to not declare independence. But for US states, the benefits of staying in a country constitutionally premised on Federalism would far outweigh any potential benefits of being an independent seceded country.
So even if the unthinkable happened and a state or two seceded today, it won't be long before they beg to be reinstated in our great country.
There would be little or no secessionist sentiment if the Constitution was strictly followed. Our day-to-day lives would be governed primarily by state laws instead of federal laws. Activist courts and allowing bureaucrats to determine the details of legislation has expanded the role of the federal government way beyond its legitimate bounds. Government is inefficient because it is too far removed from the voters. The 17th. Amendment has done nothing to help the situation. Congress is almost useless.
Do you think that the any of this secessionist talk in NH is being egged on by the Free State Project folks? I've heard a lot about this movement, aiming to have thousands settle in the state. I'd probably support some of their objectives minus secession. Libertarians have some solid ideas that I could get behind. The problem is that many of them take it to illogical extremes, especially when it comes to issues of sovereignty and foreign affairs. They would find a more receptive audience and common ground on many issues pertaining to restraining the size and scope of the government, and promoting economic freedom. The problem is that some libertarians kind of show some intransigence(not unlike many progressive leftists and the MAGA right), that either you are 100 percent on board with them, or you are a "neocon statist warmonger"(which I find amusing).
Overall from what I read about New Hampshire, it seems to have a sensible libertarian lean to their governance and politics, while remaining a swing state. NH voters appear to be smart enough to keep it to sensible levels.