Someone on ConPunk asked “Why not just split it into the red states and the blue states? I think at this point, both sides would be happy with that.”
I replied:
The left would never go for it. They need the red states to steal from, since we’re all in better shape financially. We don’t bail out bums as much, and we have more natural resources. Places like Wyoming, Texas, West Virginia and the Dakotas have all the oil and coal, natural gas and uranium. (And much of the wind and sun.)
People in New York and California think they should be administering that stuff from a comfy office, not out drilling for it.
Also, the leftie blue states would be driven mad by the thought that there are people in the next state raising their kids the way they want, carrying guns, going to church and not supporting crack babies. It would drive the lefties even more nuts than they are now.
MWD
Tags: nanny state, secession
Michael, I think the states need each other more than you think. A lot of wealth and power is centered in blue states, so much so that red states tend to be the recipients of more tax dollars per capita while contributing less.
So, what to do? Perhaps bolster state sovereignty for each individual state. Make states responsible for any social programs, run it all through the state taxes. People who want to live where there is less taxation will relocate, those who do not can stay in the blue states and get taxed and regulated up the rear.
But secession is a pipe dream, it will never happen. Alaska, for example, would collapse if the fedgov wasn’t propping them up.
I’m kind of dissapointed that New Mexico and Colorado are blue states now. They used to be so red. Also….they’re fucking it up for a clean slice in dividing this shit up if we ever had to.
Maybe the lefties in those states could trade houses with right-wingers in Orange County and Upstate New York. Orange County and Upstate New York both have a lot of conservatives, but are overwhelmed in voting by lefties in New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Also, I think they should switch the meaning of “red” and “blue” states. “Red” sounds commie to me, and that’s much more fitting of the lefties.
Florida used to be conservative too, but so many New York Jews moved there to retire, and they mostly vote Democrat.
It’s interesting to me that the larger land mass of America is red states (especially with Alaska, which is not pictured here, but is HUGE). But the large population centers are in blue states. Just goes to prove that being packed in like rats leads everyone to think “There outta be a law!”, but living where there’s a lot of wide open spaces makes you more live and let live. (Except with gays, drugs, Muslims and immigrants, apparently. lol….)
MWD
People in red states follow laws. But, its not governmental laws. It’s god’s law and any way you slice it, a law is law, regardless of doing the nannying.
Why did you place gays with drugs, Muslims and immigrants?
sorry, that should say regardless of who is doing the nannying.
“Why did you place gays with drugs, Muslims and immigrants?”
Because people in Red states tend to not like those folks and things. People in red states are more live and let live about not enacting nanny laws, except in those subjects.
MWD
Well, isn’t it funny how does the Red state motto “live and let live” does not seem to apply to gay people? It’s only for heterosexuals. Isn’t that kinda contradictory to the that motto?
Maybe the red state motto should be “live and let live….unless you are different from us.”
Works for me. lol….
MWD
I have no problem with gays and pot heads, except they vote in left wing people with bad fiscal policies. Which is really the fault of the right for rejecting them. It’s pretty hard to be gay or a pot head and want to vote Republican as it stands now.
We need more liberty-loving Republicans, in my opinion.
MWD
I think only landowners and business owners should be able to vote.
people who have money do not vote for nanny bullshit that costs so much money that you need more nanny taxes to pay for it.
If only landowners could vote, do you think we’d be bailing out crack babies, and paying students in poor schools to do well and charging taxes on “luxury” items like smokes to pay for it?
We would not.
America quit being a Democratic Republic and started the slide into Democracy when they opened the vote up to any old shlub.
A Democratic Republic is a good thing.
A Democracy is a bad thing.
It is said that all Democracies fail in between 200 and 300 years, because people who do not want to work vote in people who will let them.
I’d allow military to vote, even if they did not own land. But not while they’re in active duty, because they might vote in people who would get them out of a needed war. (Idea borrowed from Heinlein.)
I’d also allow people who didn’t own land to vote if they directly served the military in some way, like research scientist or engineer.
When America started, only landowners could vote. (Only white landowners, actually. I’d have no problem with non-white landowners voting, if they truly cared about the country, and could pass a basic civics test. Same standards would apply for white landowners.)
MWD
So, basically you want a country that is NOT the United States. You want a land where only the rich (in this case, land-owners) can vote. Well, I don’t own land. I rent an apartment. Due to this, you think I should not be allowed to vote? There are MANY people who do not own land who are not poor nor stupid. Meanwhile, you have think-tanks like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. They should be allowed to vote just because they own land? Your aristocratic theory would not allow a good and successful government.
Remember, money and intelligence does not go hand in hand.
And not for nothing, I am so tired of hearing “when America started blah, blah, blah”. A country can not freeze itself in time. That’s why the middle east is in its current condition. A country can only succeed in progression, not by remaining stagnant.
Sorry for not making this all one response, but many times I hear from conservatives about how good it was when the country first started. Well, that’s bullshit. No one alive today was alive back then. You can not make a comparison on quality of life in America today with a time period that you where not alive. It’s all speculation and fantasy. Stop pretending that you know life was better back then when you have absolutely no idea.
“Meanwhile, you have think-tanks like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. ”
LOL!
Really, I like Matt’s plan.
MWD
-Maybe the red state motto should be “live and let live….unless you are different from us.”-
Precisely why I will never call myself a Republican. I’ve seen that philosophy in action my entire life, and it’s not a pretty thing. No way can I get behind it. Guess that’s why I identify with Libertarians.
-I think only landowners and business owners should be able to vote.-
Careful bro, seriously, that’s a dangerous concept. There’s a lot of good people in this country that don’t own land or businesses. Money and holdings doesn’t make someone intelligent, and it definitely doesn’t make someone good. If I’m not mistaken, that type of a system is a long way toward achieving Fascism. Everyone in this country is supposed to have rights, from billionaire tycoons on down to the homeless guy that tried to panhandle me this morning. I don’t have a problem with anyone voting unless they’re in prison or mentally ill. Requiring a basic knowledge of how this country is supposed to work is one thing, but I know for a fact that some people own land and/or businesses strictly out of blind luck. Their acquisition of such had nothing to do with their own merits.
-A country can not freeze itself in time. That’s why the middle east is in its current condition. A country can only succeed in progression, not by remaining stagnant.-
Gotta agree with TS on this one. If it weren’t for “progressives”, we wouldn’t have a lot of the freedoms we have today, and a religious Christian theocracy would be a likely and distinct possibility. Without progressives, we would literally still be in the dark ages. Unfortunately, many of us disagree on what constitutes “progress”. If our government would choose to err more on the side of individual liberty however, I think true progress would be possible. At the very least, we wouldn’t hurt as many people in the quest for such.
Justin
As a red state kind of guy living in a blue state, this would be not good for the home team. The blue state herd would first cleanse the home turf of non-believers. I would have to abandon my home and property to the “state” and flee. to where? Do yoiu think the red state folks would be happy to see me? Safe to say not, as at that point I would be homeless with a family.
Every state has a blue/red componant, some more than others. That is why I fight local to retain/ restore Constitutional government to Vermont. Even though it has a rep as a lib state, there are a LOT of folks around here that would be not so happy if you called them a demo-rat.
Check out Vermont Campaign for liberty to get an idea of what the resistance to the three B’s (Bennington, Brattleboro, Burlington) looks like.
WOW!!! Thanks, Justin!