from the you-can-go-your-own-way-♩♫♩♫ dept.
Supporters of a plan for California to secede from the union took their first formal step Monday morning, submitting a proposed ballot measure to the state attorney general's office in the hopes of a statewide vote as soon as 2018.
Marcus Ruiz Evans, the vice president and co-founder of Yes California, said his group had been planning to wait for a later election, but the presidential election of Donald Trump sped up the timeline.
"We're doing it now because of all of the overwhelming attention," Evans said.
The Yes California group has been around for more than two years, Evans said. It is based around California taxpayers paying more money to the federal government than the state receives in spending, that Californians are culturally different from the rest of the country, and that national media and organizations routinely criticize Californians for being out of step with the rest of the U.S.
Could California go it alone?
Related Stories
A California technology billionaire said on Thursday that his longtime and perhaps quixotic effort to partition the Golden State into multiple new states could soon be put before voters.
Venture capitalist Tim Draper said he had gathered about 600,000 signatures on a petition to put his proposal to divide California on the November ballot, more than the 366,000 needed to qualify. It is his third attempt to get voters to weigh in on his call to break up the most populous U.S. state.
Draper, who in 2014 and 2016 failed in his efforts to win approval for a ballot initiative to divide the state into six parts, said in a news release Thursday that he planned to file the signatures with election officials next week.
[...] To go into effect, California would first have to certify the signatures that Draper has gathered, and then voters in November would need to pass the measure. After that, the U.S. Congress would have to approve it.
Also at The Mercury News and SFGate.
Related:
Secessionists Formally Launch Quest for California's Independence
California Secession Leader has Russian Ties
Calexit: the "Bad Boys of Brexit" Throw Their Weight Behind Move to Split State
Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot
California's 168-year run as a single entity, hugging the continent's edge for hundreds of miles and sprawling east across mountains and desert, could come to an end next year — as a controversial plan to split the Golden State into three new jurisdictions qualified Tuesday for the Nov. 6 ballot.
If a majority of voters who cast ballots agree, a long and contentious process would begin for three separate states to take the place of California, with one primarily centered around Los Angeles and the other two divvying up the counties to the north and south. Completion of the radical plan — far from certain, given its many hurdles at judicial, state and federal levels — would make history.
It would be the first division of an existing U.S. state since the creation of West Virginia in 1863.
Previously: Proposal to Divide California Into Three States Could Land on the November Ballot
Related: Secessionists Formally Launch Quest for California's Independence
California Secession Leader has Russian Ties
Calexit: the "Bad Boys of Brexit" Throw Their Weight Behind Move to Split State
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:31PM
For years I have been regularly instructed by The Narrative that secession movements are always and forever dog whistles for neo-confederate racists. States Rights is also a code word for racists wanting to bring out the chains. What are we supposed to think about this? Somehow I doubt we will get an honest admission that it is only OK when Progressives do it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:52PM
For years I have been regularly instructed by The Narrative that secession movements are always and forever dog whistles for neo-confederate racists. States Rights is also a code word for racists wanting to bring out the chains. What are we supposed to think about this? Somehow I doubt we will get an honest admission that it is only OK when Progressives do it.
Succession is "OK" if you believe in a weak federal government and strong states' rights, and not "OK" if you believe in a strong union and states' rights being reigned in by a federal constitution. It's not really a right vs left question, except that since the civil war racists have often hidden behind this argument when their real objective isn't states' rights, but succession from the federal government and a free hand to run amok against minorities, and in particular target the black and Jewish communities (and also the Catholics, which is amusing given the central role Catholicism has played in just about every western fascist regime from before Hitler to the present, but I digress).
I don't think this will go anywhere (I tend to believe in a strong union over states' rights, though if the white supremacists now in power run amok I could see my opinion changing, as a matter of self-preservation if nothing else), but it is amusing to see the racist Republicans who are now in power in a position to be forced to "eat their own dogfood."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by meustrus on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:53PM
Fixed that for you. Because while it may fall along the same lines much of the time, we all know what the divide really is.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:55PM
Well, it is possible that after the last election liberals have finally seen the wisdom of a limited federal government, and if not that, secession is the only other option.
Why are you laughing?
(Score: 4, Touché) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:03PM
They overwhelmingly were exactly that and this one is misguided, for pretty much the same reason the racists are always wrong: not liking an election result isn't a reason to secede, regardless(Except maybe Scotland and brexit where EU membership was used as a primary justification for staying the first time, so the inversion is a reason to secede).
The underlying motives are different with neo-confederates. I mean I get that you're jmorris and understanding even the most obvious and face-hammering of nuances isn't your thing, but come on. Not everything is about how oppressed you are for your shitty, shitty political views.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by butthurt on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:19PM
[...] not liking an election result isn't a reason to secede [...]
Perhaps it isn't only the result of the 2016 presidential election that bothers them, but a system designed to "nerf" the influence of people in the most populous states. The intention was to balance the power of the slave-holding and free states.
California has 12.0% of the U.S. population but 10.2% of the Electoral College votes and 2.0% of the Senate seats. Texas has 8.4% of the the U.S. population, 6.3% of the Electoral College votes and 2.0% of the Senate seats. Both California and Texas were, briefly, independent. The Texas secession movement has the euphony of "Texit" in its favour.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/inspired-brexit-texas-considers-seceding-texit-article-1.2686747 [nydailynews.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population [wikipedia.org]
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.htm [worldatlas.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:40AM
Los Angeles County has WAY more people than Wyoming, yet that sparsely-populated state gets 2 senators, while the entire state of California gets the same count.
If there was to be a proper "Democracy" in the USA, a system of senatorial districts would be a good start.
Some folks have redrawn the map of the USA, divided into 50 equal divisions by population.[1] [archive.li]
L.A. County, Orange County, and the Frisco Bay Area come out as examples of those divisions.
The rest of the state (well, sorta) gets split into 3 more divisions.
N.B. Those 3 counties would be Blue (Orange County switched colors in the 2016 election) and the 3 other chunks would be Red.
We really do need a Constitutional Convention to rework a whole bunch of outdated ideas that are still in the centuries-old founding document.
[1] There's another dude(?) who used pretty much the same divisions but came up with some different names.
He called Washington+Alaska "Washlaska" and called Hawaii "Nice Weather".
Bitterroot is "Rocky Mountain High" and Great Basin is "Loving Hands".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:38AM
So CA should split into multiple states then.
Without the Senate and without the EC, the people of NY City, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco would have total say over an entire country with many varied local cultures for which they have absolutely no understanding or caring. I say this as a Green voting lefty, not some right wing whatever.
Honestly, Democrats are a bunch of whiners crying about losing and blaming the structure of our government rather than the fact that they ran a war mongering, offshoring, prison state loving, surveillance pushing, bankster codling candidate while totally ignoring the plight of the working class. Yet it's the structure of our gov't at fault? Give me a break. Here's the run down:
B Clinton won first election (helped by Perot). 2nd win is a gimme, evidence: GWB. SInce then however:
Gore: ran as more hawkish than GWB (though GWB lied) and as a wall street shill. LOST
Kerry: more of the same neo-liberal crap. LOST
Obama: Ran as a raging liberal (also lied). WON
H Clinton: Ran as center/right Republican. LOST
It doesn't take much more than a 25 IQ to understand the Clinton-way, is the losing way. Democrats wanna win elections? Move left. Otherwise, run yourself into irrelevance -- you're almost there now.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:25AM
A minor point: the San Francisco area isn't as populous as you imply; for census purposes it's the 11th most populous metropolitan area. The Dallas area is the fourth most populous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas [wikipedia.org]
[...] total say over an entire country with many varied local cultures for which they have absolutely no understanding or caring.
You exaggerate, but I agree that a pitfall of democracy is the tendency to act against the interests of minority groups. However, weighting people's influence according to where they live makes it more likely that the interests of the majority won't be served. Jeremy Bentham would not approve.
> I say this as a Green voting lefty [...]
According to Breitbart News,
Trump won Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral college votes, by 68,236 votes, Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral college votes, by 27,257 votes, and Michigan, with its 16 electoral college votes, by 13,107 votes.
Had those 108,600 votes gone to Hillary Clinton, she would have won the presidency with a a 278 to 260 electoral college victory over Trump.
-- http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/113000-votes-pa-wi-mi-gave-trump-56-electoral-college-votes/ [breitbart.com]
Jill Stein is trying to raise funds for a count of the votes in those three states.
http://jillstein.org/recount [jillstein.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:02AM
I'm really mad at Stein over this. If Clinton wins, progressive values are dead for anywhere from 8 to 20 years. With Trump, a lefty stands a chance in a mere four years and Democrats won't sit around silent while their president guts the Bill of Rights and gets us into a nuclear conflagration over pipelines in Syria. Clinton would have to see all three state go her way though, which is pretty unlikely.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:22AM
Don't repeat Breitbart maths, they ain't too bright. Had 54301 of those votes gone to HC, she would have won, as she'd have 54301 more, and Trump would have 54301 fewer.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:01AM
OK. Agreed. But replace them with what and how... ? Yes, that's the purpose of the convention, but it's not nearly that simple.
From CNN [cnn.com]:
A convention may not give you the changes you want. You may not get the rules you want. When time comes to compromise...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:26AM
There's another dude(?) who used pretty much the same divisions but came up with some different names.
He called Washington+Alaska "Washlaska" and called Hawaii "Nice Weather".
Bitterroot is "Rocky Mountain High" and Great Basin is "Loving Hands".
I always thought the natural divisions of the US were the People's Republic of California, the United States of Canada, and Jesusland.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:47PM
Some folks have redrawn the map of the USA, divided into 50 equal divisions by population.
That would be another nail in the coffin for the division of power from federalism. Currently, a senator represents a state not some arbitrary division of people. And of course, I guess we haven't yet learned of the perils of gerrymandering? The power of the Senate gets transferred to who is in control of allotting these senate divisions.
I'll note that these these matters are routine rural/urban conflicts and as a result, a strong reason for the Senate and Electoral College still exists: to give rural areas a voice. In other words, some of the same reason these things existed in the first place still persist.
We really do need a Constitutional Convention to rework a whole bunch of outdated ideas that are still in the centuries-old founding document.
There are two problems with this assertion. First, the convention would have to be called for by at least two thirds of the states (currently 34 states). That means that you would have to include a fair portion of the states whose interests are being acted against by this convention. Second, so what if there's a few outdated ideas in the document? What makes you think everyone is going to agree on which ideas are the outdated ones? For example, some might think that the Second Amendment is outdated while others might think direct vote of US senators is outdated (and instead require senators to be appointed by governors of the states which incidentally neatly eliminates your concern about the Senate while making the Senate more like the EU's Council of the European Union).
My view is that instead of making a mess that nobody will like (and which only a tyranny could pass), use focused amendments that consist of the desired change as well as the necessary political bribes to induce parties to vote or secondary changes (so you aren't stuck in some terrible intermediate state).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:34AM
It's not because of the election results, but what the new administration of white nationlist racist fuckwads PLAN on doing.
That's why. They are not going to undo all of the progress and make us fight for another 40 fucking years just get equal rights to everyone, overtime pay for those that deserve it, all kinds of environmental regulations.
What the limited government people forget, is that the vast majority of it falls under the simple fact that unless we tell corporations to act like human beings, and EXACTLY how to act in the best interests of the public (We the People), they never fucking do it. Regulations didn't occur in a vacuum, but originated first by the refusal of some corporations to do the right things.
That's because Capitalism tells them (their version) that absolutely anything that greed dictates (profits going up) is instantly okay, and that nobody should have the rights to impugn on their freedom to do it, regardless of the human costs.
I greatly suspect that the vast majority of people running around today don't realize that the regulations that Trump and small government people hate include the 8-hour day and overtime pay. All the coal miners being told to vote Trump is fucking rich when he and his vile cronies will give the coal baron back all of the power. We won't go back to the inhumane conditions of before will we? No chance? LOL. Get ready.
THAT was something women and children died for in front of their protesting husbands that were massacred. There is a huge history of suffering about to be completely and utterly undone while hateful pieces of human excrement walk around (and online) spewing their hate filled rhetoric against immigrants, liberals, progressives, and anybody that has a brain and can understand climate science.
The country has simply become too divided. This isn't an argument, dude, but a break up.
Grounds for divorce couldn't be more clear to all parties involved.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:41AM
This freakout about Trump is nuts. Look at all the neocon shit Obama did over the last year. The Democrats literally epoxied their mouths shut and sat on their hands. Not one thought to ask "What would Cheney do with this power?" Had HRC won, the slide into police state would have continued unabated with not whisper of protest.
Trump is a gift to progressive values. People will protest, push back, get unruly and as a result there will be compromise. The REACTION to Trump is the best thing to happen to progressives (whether they know it or not) since FDR.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:03AM
I heard the same BS out of conservative talk back when Obama was elected. The sky was falling. The world was gonna end. OMG! Eric Holder is his AG nominee! They have plans!
The (so called) MSM is/ has become to the left what talk-radio and infowars is to the right. The problem is not that these outlets exist... free speech is good... but rather when you can't filter it. I don't think Trump knows what he plans do do really. I'm not sure that he can last a year in office without doing something that will lead "his own" party to impeach him. But the MSM is telling us about his 'plans'. Somehow they 'know'. Maybe like they knew how the election was gonna turn out.
The BHO administration, frustrated by a congress who could not produce legislation, started pushing the limits of what the executive branch could do without the legislative. The problem with this approach is that the undo process is the same for a future administration. So yes, they're probably gonna roll back the easy stuff. And because congress doesn't need to get involved, there will be lots of easy stuff.
When you do a thing unintentionally, it's an accident. When you do a bad accident to lots of people, it's a tragedy. But when you know what you are doing and it kills people, it's murder. And when you support a murderer... [washingtonpost.com]
If BHO had dealt with this [washingtonpost.com] decisively, HRC would have won. If he had found a better answer to this problem, HRC would have won. If he had dealt with these guys [google.com], HRC would have won. Any one of those. Before you blame Trump for what he has not yet done, you should look at your own heroes...
This didn't happen back in 2009 because people remember what happened last time there was a 'breakup'. Even when BHO twisted the knife [politico.com]... I thought HRC supporters were supposed to be more educated?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:12PM
It's not because of the election results, but what the new administration of white nationlist racist fuckwads PLAN on doing.
You equate that with capitalists, greed, and so on. It's yet another reminder of how bankrupt those phrases are these days. I think what's most telling here is that they aren't any more racist than you are. Should we similarly discount your beliefs and interests?
What the limited government people forget, is that the vast majority of it falls under the simple fact that unless we tell corporations to act like human beings, and EXACTLY how to act in the best interests of the public (We the People), they never fucking do it. Regulations didn't occur in a vacuum, but originated first by the refusal of some corporations to do the right things.
Follow the money. At least half the US budget is social programs not regulation. So right there, the "vast majority" doesn't fall under regulation.
I greatly suspect that the vast majority of people running around today don't realize that the regulations that Trump and small government people hate include the 8-hour day and overtime pay. All the coal miners being told to vote Trump is fucking rich when he and his vile cronies will give the coal baron back all of the power. We won't go back to the inhumane conditions of before will we? No chance? LOL. Get ready.
Let us recall that the most powerful tool of the large business and cartel is barrier to entry [wikipedia.org]. Complex and onerous regulation is a key part of the current US approach to creating such barriers to entry. I think the thing I despise most about politics are the people who create the problem they claim they want to fix.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:42AM
It was said by a senator from South Carolina in 1861 that South Carolina was too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum. California is large enough to be a country in its own right, and one of the most prosperous on Earth, and succession is definitely not an insane idea when the federalism fails it. However, I think succession is a bad idea because, like it or not, the United States is much stronger together than it is separate nations. The Donald being the president is more a statement by the electorate that the country needs to go in a different direction than a statement that he would make a good president. It's a virtual certainty he will be perhaps the worst we've had... and we've had several incredibly incompetent ones (no, I'm not naming names but if you know your history you know who they are).
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:28PM
You poor soul. You really do have trouble, don't you?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:26PM
You raise good points.
I think this is cool, and I certainly think anyone in California who wants to secede should be permitted to, and looking at the new President, I can't blame them. (Of course, I feel the same way looking at the last several Presidents, too.)
Of course, I think anyone in California who doesn't want to secede should be permitted to secede from California and remain in the USA if they choose. That is what freedom is all about.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Funny) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:12PM
Let them go, let them destroy all their guns, then we can just re-conquer them to be a non-voting protectorate.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:37PM
Never read Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach, published in 1975?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:30PM
we'd have to throw a few million in floating reeducation camps and give them a push out to sea.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:56PM
You're kidding right? The South wanted to leave the Union because of a business dispute. As much as it was about slavery, that was only being pushed because slaves were competing with the workers in the North, and it is hard to compete with a slave. It was a bunch of rich fuckers that brought the country to war simply over their avarice, and they threw each other under the bus with claims of treason while plotting treason. Not that I blame them entirely, they could see through abolitionists claims to the greedy businessmen in Washington tired of playing a losing economic game.
It has nothing to do with Progressives, and everything to do with the abject failure of the U.S government and white nationalists taking the White House and threatening to do undo every single ounce of progress in civil rights, human rights, overtime pay, the environment, etc. while allowing Trump the biggest pay-to-play presidency the world has ever seen with the most conflicts of interest any president has ever had. What the fuck did you think would happen? Everyone goes back into the closets? Liberals just shut down? Older family members just move in with younger ones when Social Security and Medicare are eradicated? We're going to still pay taxes to this new administration and watch our loved ones die in the street? Social Security fucking works, and until you have a super concrete fucking plan for dealing the loss of income and medical care for these people, all you have done is consign them to the gutter.
This time around it does come from the people, and the arguments are numerous and vast. Over half of the voters repudiated Trump and the abhorrent ideology of the alt-right hate movement. Like I said, we're not going to just take it. In addition to succession we're getting the electronic voting machines audited, because Hillary may have actually fucking won. Regardless, We're not backing down, fuck Trump, fuck his white nationalist racist cabinet members, his AG, etc.
At no time will Trump be our President, and succession is the proper and moral move. We're simply too different from the hate and fear that no rules too much of the country. This is just the beginning, and I would like to see a compact form between groups in Portland and Seattle to pull the entire Western seaboard off the U.S political map.
From succession, to Declaration of Independence II, Article 5 Conventions, mass civil disobedience, protests, and god knows what else are going to be brought to bear upon the hate movement that captured our government.
At whatever cost, we will be free again.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:32AM
Put down your latte, stop posting on Soylent and do something you pussy. I dare you. Your type are born to be ruled over. You lack the courage to act on your borrowed convictions.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by BK on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:22AM
We can use the word 'repudiated' if you want. It's not a proper synonym for 'didn't vote for'. But if you want to use it that way, HRC was also 'repudiated'. Due to the magic of minor parties and FPP voting, neither got a majority of the popular vote but still a winner was declared.
The rules are complex and maybe even stupid. But there is a certian justice in it since in truth nobody got a majority of the popular vote. The party of the anti-globalist 'white nationalists' defeated (on a technicality) the party of the globalist 'black and mexican nationalists'. I'm just glad that none of these racists got a national majority.
Your candidate was (also?) REPUDIATED.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:41PM
That's the major takeaway from this election.
The Working Class is done with Neoliberalism.
Now, Joe Average's choice of an alternative to Clintonism seems odd to a lot of us.
...and the numbers this time are interesting. [heavy.com]
Eligible to vote - 231,556,622
Didn’t Vote - 96,421,324 (41.6 percent)
So, "None of the above" outdrew everybody on the ballot.
The tallies of those who did vote [wikipedia.org] show that Jill got over 1 percent and Gary got over 3 percent (still not enough for federal matching funds next time around).
If you scroll down a bit to Results by state, the 3rd party results are interesting.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:28AM
As a Cascadian Separatist, and a lefty, I'm stoked that it is finally sinking into people's minds that secession is not just for racists.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:16AM
For years I have been regularly instructed
We have found the error. You do not just walk into Mord. . . instruct jmorris! It will not take! He will not understand! He will think you failed his sorry ass because you are a libtard professor! Because he cannot understand the simplest things about humanity, helocentric systems, global warming, equality before the law, and universal human rights. Go look HERE [un.org], jmorris. Instruct yourself. You signed this. Do not depend on teachers like Newt Gingrinch, who is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person is. There is a whole new world of rational thought and reality based reasoning out there, jmorris! If only you make the slightest move to meet it, it will meet you more than half way.
But, not in that way. Pervert.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:24AM
Can you even hit Ft.Sumter from California?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:36PM
Better be ready to fight, Californians. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but the federal government isn't just going to let you leave. You are captive, and you must pay for your freedom with blood. They'll let you flout some of the federal laws, sure -- but they're pretty insistent on getting your tax dollars, and they really need to be able to give court orders to your tech companies. I hope you all succeed in seceding, but don't expect to win that battle through voting. Historically, it doesn't end there.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:47PM
the federal government isn't just going to let you leave
They might want to check to see if official policy has been changed since the last case, when atrocities against civilian population centers was the order of the day for 'traitors' who didn't agree that Washington D.C. is the font of all wisdom. For years I have held the position that any secession movement that didn't have a plan to have fully weaponized WMD sufficient to implement MAD on day one was on a suicide mission. The Feral Government will not be willing to engage in any sort of peaceful debate on this subject, only force will suffice and raising a conventional force sufficient to go toe to toe with the U.S. military is not an option.
I have old posts joking about the insanity of imagining Rick Perry and a secret team of Aggies trying to build a nuke in secret so Texas could lead an exit. CA has more of the resources for such an effort, but you still have to imagine a bunch of incompetent lefty morons building a nuke and keeping it secret from the NSA all the way to weapons mounted on missiles. Good luck with that guys.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:58PM
Trump might make a war out of it but could you imagine a Democrat having to make that call? Either way their party would loose California's EC votes for the foreseeable future.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:07PM
First they came for the Indians, and I fought them, because I am an Indian. I lost.
First they came for the Indians, and I applauded them because I wanted the Indians' land. Then they came for my slaves, and I---wait, what the fuck? I need those! But I lost.
Then they came for southerners' slaves, and I applauded them because slavery is bad. Then they came for the socialists, and seriously, the USSR is not a model for what I believe in. Too bad, I lost.
Then they came for the socialists, and I applauded them because the USSR is scary. Then they came for northern blacks, and you know I'm gonna Black Panther their shit. I lost that one too.
Then they came for northern blacks, and I applauded them because I'm racist. Then they came for the hackers, but you can't do that because I'm from a rich white family and I didn't know what I was doing. I lost and now I work for them.
Then they came for the hackers, and I applauded them because hackers are scary. Then they came for my sense of entitlement. Guess what happened.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DECbot on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:25PM
Guess what happened.
You became unable to articulate a point?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:48PM
I used to be able to articulate a point like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:55PM
I took a sword through the chest. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:05PM
For years I have held the position that any secession movement that didn't have a plan to have fully weaponized WMD sufficient to implement MAD on day one was on a suicide mission.
Agree. The only other alternative I see is distributing livefeeds of the land so that any invasion is a PR nightmare not worth the territory, but that is its own gamble and for a piece of land as big and valuable as California I don't think it has a serious chance of working. For a small and practically worthless chunk of land, I could see it.
CA has more of the resources for such an effort, but you still have to imagine a bunch of incompetent lefty morons building a nuke and keeping it secret from the NSA all the way to weapons mounted on missiles. Good luck with that guys.
Weaponising them should be the easy part; SpaceX headquarters are in Cali. I don't doubt that Silicone Valley could figure out an atom bomb given time to organize. I doubt they would get that organized before the shit hit the fan, if they tried to secede and were then promptly invaded.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:42PM
[...] LLNL designed the following warheads: W27 (Regulus cruise missile; 1955; joint with Los Alamos), W38 (Atlas/Titan ICBM; 1959), B41 (B52 bomb; 1957), W45 (Little John/Terrier missiles; 1956), W47 (Polaris SLBM; 1957), W48 (155-mm howitzer; 1957), W55 (submarine rocket; 1959), W56 (Minuteman ICBM; 1960), W58 (Polaris SLBM; 1960), W62 (Minuteman ICBM; 1964), W68 (Poseidon SLBM; 1966), W70 (Lance missile; 1969), W71 (Spartan missile; 1968), W79 (8-in. artillery gun; 1975), W82 (155-mm howitzer; 1978), B83 (modern strategic bomb; 1979), and W87 (Peacekeeper/MX ICBM; 1982).
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Livermore_National_Laboratory#Nuclear_weapons_projects [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:46PM
I think you underestimate how entertaining to many non-Californians it would be to have livefeeds of zealous federal troops shock-and-aweing an insurrection of Californian hippies. You could monetize that and make a killing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:55PM
LOL!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:35AM
> an insurrection of Californian yuppies.
There are no more California hippies, ftfy. There might be a few old surfer dudes...
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:17PM
"The only other alternative I see is distributing livefeeds of the land so that any invasion is a PR nightmare not worth the territory,"
How's that working for the Native Americans?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:47AM
Amend the Constitution to allow Unilateral Secession. Skip the WMDs.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:05PM
all the way to weapons mounted on missiles.
All you need is to plant one in DC somewhere. You don't need missiles - just a car.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:20PM
CA has more of the resources for such an effort, but you still have to imagine a bunch of incompetent lefty morons building a nuke and keeping it secret from the NSA all the way to weapons mounted on missiles.
Because if there's one thing that Silicon Valley is known for, it's having incompetent morons who can't accomplish anything. Oh, wait... I got that backwards.
I doubt any state could pull off a independent nuclear program and keep it a secret from the news networks and rumor mills, let alone the Federal government. However, I would put California as the #1 or 2 place where such an effort would have the highest chance of success. They have the population, the resources (economic, population, mineral and natural, intellectual, etc.), the land space, the physical distance from Washington DC, and their general reputation of being "lefty peaceniks."
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:52PM
I'll head out west with my guns if they really try to make a go of it. Be totally worth it to be shed of them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:24PM
So you're willing to fight FOR California to it can secede?
(Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:29PM
I'm willing to send a crack team of geologist to the San Andres fault with the mission to speed up the secession and plunge California into the Pacific.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:04PM
Don't you do this - remember Murphy's Law! When "The Big One" hits, everything east of the San Andreas will slide into the Atlantic instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:13AM
My turn to put a damper on this terrible joke once again.
The San Andreas fault is a slip-strike fault.
The movement is horizontal--not vertical.
The motion of the Pacific Plate is sending coastal California northward toward the coast of Alaska.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:50AM
So you mean to tell me that not only will California be sent to the great white north, but we will crush those fools at Microsoft headquarters in the process? Why haven't we funded this years ago?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:29AM
Whatever it takes to get them out the door. I don't even wish them ill. I just don't want to share a nation with them anymore.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by canopic jug on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:56PM
There are several key ports there in California, including naval bases. There are also several important military bases. The Federal government is not going to be so keen to let them go. Secession plans will have to include how to deal with them, but getting rid of them is most unlikely among the few choices.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:17PM
Nothing new there. Perhaps your government schooling didn't include Fort Sumpter and the role it played in the previous round of festivities.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:39PM
Apparently yours didn't either. It is Sumter. And it didn't play any major role in causing the Civil War except that it was there the first shots were fired. That war was going to happen regardless of whether Sumter existed or not.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Tara Li on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:18PM
Of course the war was going to happen anyway - de Tocqueville predicted it several years before hand. The basis of his prediction? Few northern slave holders were freeing their slaves as abolition movements moved through the Northern States. Instead, they were selling them to the South. Finally, the abolition movements got enough umph, and the Southern slave owners were told that even though they'd paid good money for those slaves, they couldn't keep them - and they couldn't get their money back either. A huge Fuck You! to the South, from the North.
Imagine going to Wal-Mart, buying up a lot of food, then getting home and being told that you can't eat it, and you can't return it for a refund. There were lots of solutions to the Succession. Abraham Lincoln preferred the more violent one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:34PM
What solutions were available? The South wasn't going to give up slaveholding without violence. To do it without violence would have required many decades of economic and social transformation, but there was no desire to do it, and not only was there no movement in that direction for the next eighty years, it actually got worse. The Founders weren't happy with the southern insistence of the rights to have slaves, and those who weren't comfortable with it saw it as a necessary compromise to band the states together. They knew they were kicking the can down the road, but it wasn't like they had the luxury of time to work it all out. Eighty years later, not only was the "right" to own slaves embedded, they were fighting like hell to keep it, which is where we got stuff like the Missouri Compromise.
I don't see how you can lay it on Lincoln's feet because there were no other options other than to keep kicking the can down the road.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:50PM
In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?
-Robert E. Lee
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:59AM
And at the end of the war, Lee had freed his slaves, Grant hadn't.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:03PM
Oh I dunno about that. Lets start with the reality that slavery was legal and permitted by the Constitution and that they represented a significant portion of the capital in the slaveholding states. So you are an Abolitionist and want to eliminate the practice, but now lets assume you are actually a moral person who doesn't believe in imposing their ever evolving morality upon the unwilling, or in renouncing settled law and agreements freely entered into. Could it be done? Yes.
Raise money and simply buy slaves, resettle them to the North and free them after equipping them to handle life as free men. None could object to it on a moral basis except the NORTHERN racists; assuming the political will could be mustered to keep them from banning free blacks from relocating north it works. Now what happens in the South as significant numbers of slaves are being bought and removed from the market? Importation was already halted and 'natural increase' was already near the limit. Supply drops, what happens to price; remember your econ 101? Slave labor suddenly gets more expensive, free labor doesn't. Push for reforms of the laws in the South that essentially made freed slaves impossible so that they could be freed in the South and thus remain in the labor pool, now of course as paid labor. Having nothing they will work for essentially slave wages, so they wouldn't be gaining a lot.... initially; however this drops the cost of buying and freeing slaves since relocation and reeducation costs drop to near zero and you can speed up the process. How long would it take that plan to hit the tipping point where owning slaves isn't cost effective anymore? Southern plantation owners wouldn't have been happy, but they probably couldn't have whipped up a secession movement either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:28AM
The West. Homestead Act of 1862 [wikipedia.org]
Your economic analysis is quite good.
Your understanding of markets is spot-on.
...now, if we can just get folks to stop referring to "markets" as "Capitalism".
We should also note that England and Canada got rid of slavery and neither required a civil war to accomplish that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:48PM
...now, if we can just get folks to stop referring to "markets" as "Capitalism".
Since when has that been a real problem? I'll note here that capitalism or private ownership of capital implies some sort of market for trading capital.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:14PM
...in your deviant mind.
There are people who, as an example, grow vegetables, sell them by the roadside, and are in competition with others who do the same--all without taking a loan from a money man or hiring others to do the work.
That's a market with no lenders|stockholders in the loop and no (exploited) employees, i.e. none of the touchstones of Capitalism.
...and "possessing money" as the defining mark of Capitalism is the kind of "thinking" I expect from a simpleton.
.
Since when has that been a real problem?
I see it here every time the topic comes up.
As an example, your current attempt to conflate the 2.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 25 2016, @03:22AM
There are people who, as an example, grow vegetables, sell them by the roadside, and are in competition with others who do the same--all without taking a loan from a money man or hiring others to do the work.
Grow vegetables in what? They need land for that. How do they move vegetables around? They need some sort of transportation like a truck, cart, or basket. How do they sell vegetables? They need some sort of signs, display, or practiced sales pitch. The capital is there. Whether they are considered to own that capital is what's important here. If no one owns land, for example, and everyone is a squatter, then land wouldn't be privately owned capital.
That's a market with no lenders|stockholders in the loop and no (exploited) employees, i.e. none of the touchstones of Capitalism.
Neither which is required for capitalism. Once again, your definition of capitalism is not recognized by anyone other than yourself. Please use standard definitions [oxforddictionaries.com].
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:06PM
Apparently yours didn't either. It is Sumter. And it didn't play any major role in causing the Civil War except that it was there the first shots were fired. That war was going to happen regardless of whether Sumter existed or not.
The US might have started a war anyway, but the Confederacy made the pretext easy by starting a fight with Fort Sumter. The US wasn't some totalitarian state that could completely fake an attack.
Delaying the start of the war would have worked to the South's advantage, particularly since a key problem was acquiring European allies and convincing other states to join (particularly Kentucky and Missouri).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:49PM
A better example would have been Fort Monroe in Virginia. Fort Monroe remained in Union hands during the entire war.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:45PM
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:20PM
Easy answer, and one I could actually see The Donald implementing:
In the lead-up to the referendum, move all mobile assets out of California. Offshore, to other states, whatever. Requisition rail access if necessary; just get it moving.
All personnel who would be willing to switch to California may stay - if it doesn't come to pass, no black mark on their records, but they aren't forced to leave either.
Anything that can't be moved but is too valuable to ditch, gets loaded with thermite charges, to be fired by trusted teams should the motion pass.
California can then have the land, some buildings, and a few folks who'd rather stay. Pity about the ports. But if they want an aircraft carrier? They can build their own.
And if it doesn't come to pass, then set everything back up. Crisis averted.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:21PM
Sounds expensive. Let me guess, the Mexicans will pay for it?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:09PM
In the lead-up to the referendum, move all mobile assets out of California. Offshore, to other states, whatever. Requisition rail access if necessary; just get it moving.
I have a better suggestion. Do nothing until California secedes, then use the bases and US ownership of so much of the territory of California as bargaining chips. That stuff doesn't automatically become part of California just because they seceded. As to what to bargain for, that depends on the situation. It could be preferential trade, long term leases on the bases in question (this being far from the first time that the US has maintained military bases in other countries), an outright sale, or ransom to allow US citizens to escape California.
If they decide to do a Fort Sumter-style attack on these bases, then you still have the choice of razing the bases and abandoning any military presence in California or using it as a casus belli for war with California (this would be the efficient way to attempt to stop serious war crimes like genocide).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jcross on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:52PM
The USA already has a shit ton of military bases in other countries. Why would this be different?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:59PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:26PM
They also own huge tracks of cali. Like 60% of it. Those are the parts where water and power are coming from.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:10PM
History lesson:
As you can see, secession did not immediately lead to war, and the inability to come to agreement over Federal installations within the seceded states could have been prolonged indefinitely without coming to blows, if both sides had been willing to let it.
That might or might not play out similarly today -- IMO, the federal government would be even less willing to appear as the aggressor, but it's hard to say. Certainly resupply of US military bases would be harder to stop, so I'm inclined to think it would settle into a stalemate, with Federal installations supplied by airlift indefinitely, but there's any number of ways either side could bring it to war if they chose.
(It's a little interesting to contemplate what might have happened if Sumter had come up a few days shorter on supplies, and thus been forced to surrender before the bombardment; however, the war would almost certainly have arced over somewhere else, because an underlying problem was that both sides were a little too sure they could easily win, and thus a little too unwilling to settle for compromise/stalemate.)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:27PM
> an underlying problem was that both sides were a little too sure they could easily win, and thus a little too unwilling to settle for compromise/stalemate.
That's how the best world wars always get started.
Note that with almost 40 million people, CA is getting a bit too big for a US military operation. The sweet spot has been for decades about 20 to 30 million.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:22PM
IMO, the federal government would be even less willing to appear as the aggressor, but it's hard to say.
Agreed. Modern media makes war unseemly and most Americans will identify with Californians more than they will Iraqis, realistically. I model the federal government as being willing to pull a Gulf of Tonkin out of their ass when they want a war bad enough, but even if I'm correct in this modeling it adds a higher cost to the war in terms of potential blowback.
Certainly resupply of US military bases would be harder to stop, so I'm inclined to think it would settle into a stalemate, with Federal installations supplied by airlift indefinitely, but there's any number of ways either side could bring it to war if they chose.
This is an interesting scenario waiting to boil over. Essentially, certain pockets of California would be permanently occupied by an outside military force -- a direct challenge to their sovereignty. I like your Sumter comparison.
I suspect California is too big of an asset for them to give up without a fight, but I could see the standoff lasting a while. Hopefully, it could even cool down in time. Maybe once Cali is a legitimate MAD threat in its own right? I'm still giving it low odds.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:53AM
As you can see, secession did not immediately lead to war, and the inability to come to agreement over Federal installations within the seceded states could have been prolonged indefinitely without coming to blows, if both sides had been willing to let it.
It was an untenable situation. The number of weeks or months that the crisis dragged on is immaterial - everyone on both sides knew that either capitulation or fighting was inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @05:39AM
As you can see, secession did not immediately lead to war, and the inability to come to agreement over Federal installations within the seceded states could have been prolonged indefinitely without coming to blows, if both sides had been willing to let it.
It was an untenable situation. The number of weeks or months that the crisis dragged on is immaterial - everyone on both sides knew that either capitulation or fighting was inevitable.
A lot of people knew that about the Cold War, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:13PM
Gorbachev blinked
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:14PM
It was an untenable situation. The number of weeks or months that the crisis dragged on is immaterial - everyone on both sides knew that either capitulation or fighting was inevitable.
If you're speaking of the situation before the US Civil War, no they didn't know that because fighting wasn't inevitable and delay was advantageous. For example, the longer that the Confederacy could prevent war, the better their odds of lining up a European ally willing to commit troops (even token amounts would suffice), the more likely that the US would be to acknowledge the situation without a fight, and there was also a possibility of still getting Kentucky, Maryland, or Missouri to join the Confederacy as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:44PM
I did say either capitulation or fighting was inevitable.
The Union fort doesn't just go away as time passes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 25 2016, @02:55PM
The Union fort doesn't just go away as time passes.
Germany has a similar problem, yet they manage to muddle through the day.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:43AM
Amend the Constitution to make Unilateral secession allowable. No need for Civil War again.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:50PM
then again, now the California has legalized "pot", perhaps all the federal govt has to do is recognize this federally....and perhaps raise a lot more funds for all the other whacky programs...
The whole secession thing is a bit like the "brexit before the vote" type media spin.
I'll be there in a few weeks for a business trip, I look forward to the conversations in the bars...
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:49AM
So what happened to all of this Freedom and Democracy that you have been telling me about for so long? Perhaps this explains why so many others wish you would stop exporting it to others who don't want your version of it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:37PM
They not only COULD go it alone, they SHOULD go it alone.
Please.
Seriously, guys, could you speed up the timeline? Maybe have a few extraordinary plenary sessions of your supreme council, or whatever it takes?
I mean, I'll be sad to see you go ...
... no, wait, I won't. Your politics are toxic, your industries leave me cold, and you offer nothing that the broader USA doesn't already have. I won't weep for Hollywood, Silicon Valley is the Home of the Bubble, and the Central Valley is what it is because of insane water management.
And besides, what is Shadowrun without CalFree?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:18PM
So Breitbart is the start of Humanis and Trump is actually an ancient dragon? I could see that.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:15PM
Hello there massive increase in the federal budget deficit. I'm sure glad you came to help us be rid of the most revenue positive state(of which there are quite few) in the union to satisfy the vague contempt of an anonymous internet poster, who thinks his fantasy-based politics aren't respected enough by them.
"Free me from the tyranny of a still functional economy!" he cries.
"If we worship at the altar of tax trickle down just a little harder, this time my midwestern/southern state will regain jobs, instead of backsliding even further." His prayers must be answered.
"Even though my politics are already incredibly over-represented in national political power, I'm still being oppressed by those damned HIPPIES". His anger needs placating. Please, destroy our union for his hate. Please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:52PM
Massive increase in the ... what crack are you smoking?
California's revenue positive situation isn't holy writ, and there's every reason to believe that when their water-related insanity finally comes home to roost (because they're basically on life support from surrounding states) they'll be a financial lame duck. Just because they're doing OK today doesn't mean they won't be a massive liability tomorrow. Now's the time to ditch them.
Let's see, what do they do for the nation in industrial terms?
Hollywood ... that is quickly hollowing itself out in the direction of other states, Canada, and Mexico. Brilliant, scratch that one off the list.
The Central Valley's agriculture - that is already showing signs of being frightfully vulnerable to their water problems. Scratch that one.
And Silicon Valley. That is in competition with the Silicon Prairie, Silicon Alley, and of course their brethren further north in Portland (home of Intel), and Seattle (home of Amazon and vacation home of Microsoft, among others). So ... not all that special and unique.
I didn't say anything about trickle down economics, and I don't think that it works, so I think you're having an argument with a bogeyman in your head. Nor, for that matter, did I say anything about hippies or national power (I'm not a Trumpeter either).
So no, sorry. I'm just not buying what you're selling. California is a bad deal; a lemon with a rapidly-approaching warranty expiry date. The smart move is to ditch it while we can. Simple fiscal calculation, not hatred.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:41PM
They can't even manage water and electricity, yet they're going to afford to leave?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:01PM
I was always amused that Colorado and California had the same voter referendum on taxes, and while Colorado managed a high degree of fiscal restraint, California...
And then the Californians moved to Colorado.
Fuck me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:28PM
There has been a growing number of Cali refugees for years in Texas, too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:19PM
These are the Californians we WANT to leave the state. You have to be insane to actually want to live in Texas. Horrible weather, worse political climate, lots of bad and corrupt bubba sheriffs to hassle you. Please, stay away from California. We don't want you back when Texas implodes.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:28AM
Hah? Horrible weather? Fuck you mean? Whatever else you say about it, Texas is pretty nice on the weather front.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:15PM
Please leave, and you can get your water from Mexico instead of the surrounding states so that what comes out the other end of you will match what's been coming out of your mouths for a long time.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:45PM
All the conservative tools are coming out of the woodwork, I guess I'm grateful that Trump won because it seems to give so many people this weird idea that their shitty viewpoints will suddenly be tolerated by the rest of the world...
Please please please help us secede, Californians are tired of supporting the bulk of fiscal responsibility for other states while be yelled at for just about everything. The troglodytes are tired of having their flaws pointed out, and I'm pretty sure we Californians could drastically improve our state health once we've removed the various forces that are screwing us over (Nestle and such causing water problems, companies fracking, desperate people hoping for economic viability, etc). We could finally be free from the heavy hand of the bible belt, and one of two things will happen.
1. You will see a continuing large exodus as your young adults flee the oppressive states for a more accepting and tolerant culture.
2. Your youth will gradually shift your politics, so you'll only have a few decades before your politics favor the winds of change.
Come on nutjobs! Help us be free of you!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:49PM
It's telling that with even how powerful you are, you are unable to free yourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:06PM
No one said anything about powerful, just financial. Its telling that your first thought is about power and implied violence....
Economic progress has always followed the centers of culture, and when humans come together in cultural centers you get rapid progress. Humans quickly learn that there are a TON of different ways to be human, and magically they become much more tolerant and open minded. Its a natural progression and you hateful conservative types are just SO angry that your fellow citizens have advanced past you (though you call it moral degradation) and somehow you take it personally that a ton of economic progress has occurred in the liberal hellholes.
I'm sarcastically sorry, but no amount of your bullshit will change the simple facts. People don't like being oppressed, they do like cultural exchange, and economic progress happens much more easily when people aren't locked into weird authoritarian bullshit that tells them there is only one narrow path to take.
My original post was just a rebuttal to all you people saying "good riddance". I don't actually want California to secede and would prefer that we all work together to make a better country. Together we are stronger, and aside from the hatred I do appreciate having conservative folks around to balance some of the extreme "progress" that can be more detrimental than beneficial.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:39PM
Well then, allow me to respond in kind-
Nothing in my statement implies or even references violence. In fact, I was tempted to reference that California's economy is larger than several independent nations.
So what does that tell me about you?
I've actually lived in California. While not quite plumbing the depths of shallowness like Florida, it ain't exactly the cultural epicenter you make it out to be (of course if you could ever find it within yourself to travel a bit instead of looking down from your ivory towers, you might have found this out yourself). Nearly all of the enduring American art forms originate from the south, and the south is by and large far more integrated than keeping your basket of deplorables sequestered in Oakland and Compton.
So much for being so advanced.
And the vast majority of your state is conservative. You might have to actually stop in a place like Victorville rather than driving through on your way to Las Vegas, but they are there. Guess what? They don't like you either.
Now a sane man would look at all this hostility coming their way and might have a moment of doubt, maybe a bit of soul-searching, but as you seem incapable, allow me to wish you well on your adventures, far, far away from me.
would prefer that we all work together to make a better country.
And your post makes perfectly clear why this will never happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:27PM
Le sigh, backpedaling like a true champion, good job. There are plenty of terrible places in California it is true, and the vast minority of the state is conservative. Just using "ivory towers" shows the type of person you are and the presumptions you make. Have fun with your backwards culture, may your children take the best of your teachings and then grow beyond them.
I fully understand the hostility, it is misplaced in just about every way except on the issues of abortion and civil rights (I presume you are not pro-choice and that gays should not be allowed to marry).
I've traveled across the US and many other countries as well, so spare me that little bit. Other states are great, except for the people such as yourself who would imprison or kill those that don't share your beliefs. Thankfully you are in the minority of the US and it is only a matter of time before your archaic and likely religious beliefs are relegated to history.
If you'd like to have a more productive discussion please include a point by point list of your grievances, why are you so hostile towards Californians? You may be surprised in how much a godless liberal such as myself might agree with. At the least we can all then be clear about our positions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:46PM
may your children take the best of your teachings and then grow beyond them.
Ha! I'm saving that one.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:03PM
Pffft, you're a laugh riot.
In case I was being a little too obtuse in saying "I've actually lived in California", let me repeat I lived in California.
I'm a godless, let-the-queers-do-what-they-want-abortions-for-all hedonist at heart.
I left in part to sanctimonious assholes like you.
So basically 0 for 3 there guy.
Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:01PM
My friend, we're all in for you to leave.
Hell, if you need to compromise something, we can accept NorCal and fold it into Eastern Oregon or something. We'll be flexible. No reason to be mean-spirited - we can make this work! It'll be the most amicable of divorces.
However, your last two points are a little weird.
1. To my certain knowledge, Californians have been pouring into Texas, Oregon, Colorado and Washington. So much so that it's a pain in the ass.
2. Actually, the direction of the youth shifting politics is far from monotonic. GenX shifted things broadly left, but millenials have slowed that trend and in many parts turned on the Democrats (apparently after years and years of failure to deliver promised change).
But yeah! Let's redraw the map! Go, CalFree!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:37PM
The Democrats are just a political party and have shifted into authoritarian type policies. I'm talking about cultural changes, and overwhelmingly millenials are pro freedoms for everyone and are leaving their religious communities in droves. Partisan politics is NOT what I'm talking about.
California has become too expensive for many, one of the downsides to economic prosperity. People aren't fleeing the culture, they're looming for a place they can afford to buy a house. Most of the people I see leaving are heading to the more liberal bastions in other states.
Also, don't kid yourself, you are in the minority and have simply surrounded yourself with an echo chamber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:59PM
Hey, I'm pro freedom as well. No problems with that. In fact, I think that they should legalise plural marriages both male and female. Better yet, take marriage as a concept right out of the hands of government. Leave it to churches. Let government just track domestic partnerships.
Want a sex change? Don't care. Not my thing, but you're welcome to it. Want to do dope? Coke? Smack? Don't care, by all means legalise them all, just have treatment for addicts.
The problem is that the democrats have become increasingly dictatorial and intolerant, and I think that millenials may have been put off by that - but also manifestly this has broken any kind of monotonic shift in the direction of progressivism. Liberality, yes, but not progressivism. And I have no problem with that.
As for people being economic fugitives from California - that in no way contradicts the idea that while California may attract people, it also repels them to the point that is provided more emigrants in some recent years than it received immigrants from other states.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:34PM
Well, magically we find that we have common ground and that the politicians are the true source of a lot of our gripes. I'm quite on the liberal side of the spectrum and I fully agree with your points except for the fugitives bit. I'm sure some of them are more conservative minded people looking for a more welcoming community, but I still put my money on it being about economics. I've considered moving myself just so I could afford a home!
We need to change the tone of our conversations here, if the argument is over political policies then we should discuss those things. Please note that the modern Democrat party is no longer liberal or progressive (as those terms have historically been used) and you are 100% correct about them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @02:55AM
> Californians have been pouring into Texas, Oregon, Colorado and Washington. So much so that it's a pain in the ass.
A couple of years ago I met a sharp, middle-aged doctor who had just moved to Buffalo, NY from Southern California. One major reason for his move was that the health care system in CA was dysfunctional (his words). His job satisfaction out west was very low--always fighting the system so that he could actually deliver some care to his patients.
And we've got plenty of water too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @10:49PM
I hear that some it is even in liquid form.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:20PM
Secession is a bad idea. The feds are pretty bad, but that doesn't mean that secession is good. But as they're proposing to do this in the legal way, it won't happen anyway, so for this to come up right now is just a vote of no confidence in the elected government (which I agree with).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:38PM
"I guess I'm grateful that Trump won because it seems to give so many people this weird idea that their shitty viewpoints will suddenly be tolerated by the rest of the world..."
I think you've missed the real meaning of the election: pendulums swing back. The progressive viewpoints have driven society in one direction for the last 40 years or so. The pendulum reached the end of its swing a couple of years ago. Finally, enough people are fed up with the "shitty viewpoints" of the progs and SJWs: the swing back has begun.
It's our turn now.
The one thing that I do regret, quite genuinely, is that the pendulum will inevitably swing too far. In 15 or 20 years, I will be back on your side, trying to damp the swing to the right. But for the moment? The next few years are going to be seriously enjoyable. The pendulum has a long ways to go, just to reach center.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:54PM
Oooh man you're deluded. The Democrats are neo-liberals that have actually eroded a lot of liberal policies and enacted a ton of authoritarian garbage, the pendulum has been swinging hard towards tyranny, with some key pieces such as abortion, gay marriage, and the push to end the drug war. Those last items are there to give the population a sense that progress is being made and things are getting better. The problem is that while they distracted us with gains in civil rights (probably what gets you most upset) they've taken away a lot of economic viability for the average person (another thing the conservative folks are very upset about).
You may swing the pendulum of civil rights in your own state, and hopefully we get fiscal policy that is beneficial to citizens and not corporations. However, it is more likely that as your politics really come to light the majority (remember, HRC won the majority vote) of people will double down on their efforts to stop your authoritarian wet dreams.
Since we're throwing shit back and forth without any specifics, care to give me some of the highlights of how the pendulum has swung too far?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:00PM
"Since we're throwing shit back and forth without any specifics, care to give me some of the highlights of how the pendulum has swung too far?"
Sure. Care to post under your own name?
First, it's not about authoritarianism at all. Both sides of the coin that are politics in the USA (Democrats and Republicans) belong to the same group, a group that wants to consolidate its own power. You may note my other post on this article, where I am all for secession, because it breaks up "too big to fail" governments. Governments which are, of course, totally against the idea.
So where has the pendulum swung to far?
Multiculturalism: the idea that every culture is equally good and deserving of respect. Nope, sorry, some cultures are barbaric, and should be banned from polite company. I'm not in the US, but it's the easy example here: Once, the US was proud to be the "melting pot", where people gave up their original culture and became just Americans. This is no longer true: now, people are encouraged to maintain separate subcultures. Black culture. Hispanic culture. Islamic culture. African culture. Multiculturalism is a disaster: Ask Minnesotans how they are enjoying Somali culture. [wnd.com]
Political correctness. You are not allowed to criticize certain groups, regardless of context. Depending on where you are, this can be really extreme. Example: The freak-out in the US about transgender people and bathrooms. Another example: Thou shalt not criticize anything to do with feminism.
Racism (and very similar: sexism). Whites are racist, but profoundly racist attitudes on the part of non-whites else are somehow not a problem. Example: the BLM movement in the US is focused on white violence against blacks, but utterly ignores the fact that blacks commit far more violent crimes. Example: Here in Europe, the kid gloves with which crimes by muslim refugees are handled (rape a young boy? It's ok, the rapist had a "sexual emergency" [dailymail.co.uk]).
So what should happen, when the pendulum swings back toward center?
- Western culture should regain its pride. Western culture, with its roots going back to the Romans and Greeks, has a lot to be proud of. There is every reason for Westerners to be proud of our culture. Not least of which: we invented most of the technology in use on the planet today.
- Multiculturalism should end. People who immigrate must be expected to adapt to the local culture.
- Freedom of speech. This is probably hopelessly naive, but people should feel free to share their viewpoints without worrying about social ostracism, swatting, losing their jobs, death threats, etc..
- Treat people as individuals. Equality, yes. Special treatment, no. The current pressure to hire people based on their gender or ethnicity needs to stop. Inevitably, certain groups will migrate towards certain professions. The average woman has better social skills than the average man - most social workers are women. Men are usually stronger than women - most construction workers are men. From watching sports, certain areas in Africa seem to produce the best runners. As long as each individual has been treated fairly, and rated by their competence, there is no problem.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:33PM
TRIGGERED!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:58PM
Haha sorry, you're just showing your best troll face :P go suck an egg
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:48PM
Excellent! Now that is a good post.
I agree with everything you said, but it would be easy to take some points to extremes. Multiculturalism is fine as long as immigrants are also adapting to the local culture. Follow the local laws and adapt enough to coexist without real friction. They don't need to become christians or stop celebrating their own culture. PC culture has definitely gone too far though its intentions were initially good.
However, you can't ignore the long term cultural prejudice that has existed in the US. It has gotten better, but there are still very visible vestiges along with enclaves of full-blown bigots/racists. If conservatives can admit that there are real reasons for why anti-racist and PC culture came about THEN we can move forward. Until then every pushback against those two items will only be interpreted as further antagonism and support of prejudice. It runs very deep to the point where even people who truly are not racist can say some stupid things without realizing that it amounts to cultural domination.
Criticism of PC culture (as a catch-all) should be accompanied with understanding why that culture came about. "It is terrible that some policies target minorities and we're working to end race divisions, but don't call me racist just because I disagree with XYZ." If you're talking to someone who can't separate out concepts then stop engaging, they are true believers and need to work through their emotional baggage before meaningful discussion can occur. It goes both ways.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:02AM
> (rape a young boy? It's ok, the rapist had a "sexual emergency").
When I saw your link to the Daily Fail I decided to do a little digging. They (and you) have massively risrepresented the facts of the case: The attacker did claim to have a "sexual emergency" but the courts did not take that into consideration, it's only the newspapers that have chosen to make a big deal of those two words. The case was flagged for retrial due to some legal technicality around an omission of evidence made by the prosecution, that's all. The attacker was tried to the same standards as anybody else, there was no special treatment. A white European guy would have been dealt with the same way in the same circumstances. The perpetrator is in jail, his conviction of sexual abuse is still upheld, and he will be re-tried properly for rape and almost certainly re-convicted. Even if the rape charge doesn't stick, the sexual abuse one will keep him behind bars.
What we see here is a legal system working correctly - making sure everything is done fairly and by the book. This kind of thing happens all the time, all over the world, and for some reason it only hits the headlines when there's an immigrant at the centre of it.
In short, your link is hyperbolic, alarmist, and dishonest. Confirmation bias to generate xenophobia and anti-immigrant feelings.
Here's another newspaper covering the same story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/iraqi-refugee-raped-10-year-old-boy-swimming-pool-vienna-austria-sentence-conviction-overturned-a7377491.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:31PM
Please read this: political compass [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:44PM
Please please please help us secede, Californians are tired of supporting the bulk of fiscal responsibility for other states while be yelled at for just about everything.
To help support the policies that 'the democrats' helped put in place. You would also need to take with you the debt you have helped incur. We can be nice and say you get 1/50th of it. Can your state take on an additional 400 billion in debt? Proportionally probably MUCH higher. As you are going to have to give the US a sweetener to make it worth their time to let it happen.
Also you probably would end up tearing your state in 2. A good portion of the country folk do not like you. They will not sit by and go 'oh well no biggie'. They will be pissed off about the shit show you put forward they are not going to be happy with the idea that the 'city is in charge'.
Do you like higher prices? You better. The country folk are going to stick it to you.
Do you have your own currency? Better set one up. Do you have anything to back it up except code and happy feelings?
Those 'key bases' do you have a plan to take them from the US? They do not give them up easily.
Do you have a plan for the 800,000 federal employees and how to pay them if you decide to keep them on? Or are you just going to throw them in the streets and hope they can find a job in the now massive unemployment you just created?
Do you have a plan for the 47% of the land the US gov owns? Do you have a plan for the 50 million dollars per year they feed into your local govs which is now gone? They pay local taxes on it and make sure the places stay nice. Better have a plan for the 1.5 billion dollars in local spending that those parks generate going away.
Do you have a plan for the several million retired, federal, and service men and women? Do you have funding for them? They are going to want their money.
Do you have a plan for the millions of dollars the fed pays to local govs for those nice military bases? You better be ready to renegotiate and they have 0 reason to leave. Better raise some local taxes to cover the deficit.
Do you have a plan for the postal service? You will end up with a large infrastructure that is underfunded. Better raise those taxes to help pay for it.
How are your roads and rails? Better find a way to fund them. Federal aid will be gone. Time to raise gas prices again.
How are your oil reserves? Better like higher prices for that too as the bankers will stick you on the exchange rates for your new untested currency that has massive inflation.
How is your large h1b visa population? Do you have a plan for them? They will now be in the wrong country. Not all will be looking to just move to your new country.
Did you like other americans coming to your area to live? Well that will fall off quickly. As moving from one country to another is massive challenge. Even from one state to another is a pain. You think otherwise but try looking into moving like that. It is not that easy and not cheap so you better be willing to pay for people to move there.
Do you have a military? Better get one going or be prepared to pay for one to help you. The Americans are coming and I would say 50% of your population will help them.
Do you have a plan for the massive drop off in federal school aid? Better raise that tuition and make loans with your newly minted inflationary currency.
How is your water supply? Huge parts of it come from the nevadas. Owned by the federal gov. They will quickly see no reason to help you when other states are saying 'we could use the water'. So hope you have those desalination plants working. Better have a way to deal with the brine they churn out by the millions of gallons at a time.
Oh do you like taxes and tariffs? You have 0 treaties with anyone. So they will screw you over on them. Remember the federal gov no longer has your back on that. The fed has been negotiating for you for years. You think the UK, EU, Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Mexico, and the your new foe the US will be all over that. Remember all of those countries are good at it. Beware bankers with smiling faces.
How is your copyright/contract regime. Remember you no longer have the fed backing you up. GPL depends upon it. Hollywood depends on it. You have no treaties. Copyright law is very clear in the US about that. You get no protection. Drag it on negotiations for 2-3 years (which the US and EU are quite capable of doing) and suddenly your software economic bubble dries up.
Do you like corruption? People will quickly realize they can buy favor from their new political friends with money. Some of the largest 1%rs live in cali. Think they are not going to abuse that?
Do you like the CIA and other five eyes orgs? You would become their playroom. The FBI would just up and look the other way as it would be out of their jurisdiction.
The troglodytes are tired of having their flaws pointed out, and I'm pretty sure we Californians could drastically improve our state health once we've removed the various forces that are screwing us over
Ah so you are going to remove your economic base and continue to insult them than work with them. Good plan. You may want to look to why your state has continuously built large cities and farms in what is very arid conditions.
You will see a continuing large exodus as your young adults flee the oppressive states for a more accepting and tolerant culture.
You think your propaganda would continue to be played on the air? You think the federal gov would allow another country to have a say in what it means to be 'american'?
Your youth will gradually shift your politics,
People as they get older realize that the pie in the sky help everyone does not work out. Resources are scarce and other people own them. All 'youth' think that.
My bet is the Fed wouldnt even need to use military force against you. They would cripple you with debt and backroom deals that cut you out of the mix. They have done it before and they *will* do it again. You don't think the entirety of the middle east and central america is pissed off at us because we are such great guys do you?
I do not quite think you realize HOW intertwined all of the states are at this point. California is where it is because of massive federal aid (money and personal). If it were not for the fed it would just be another shitty part of mexico with some nice beaches.
You propose an idea out of anger. You are now in stages 2 and 3 of the stages of grief. Anger and bargaining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model#Stages [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:53PM
No, my proposal was not serious, just a rebuttal to all the people saying "yeah, get rid of California!" It was basically a bit of satire to throw back.
You have quite a few of your financial points mixed up, California is one of the economic powerhouses of the US, we subsidize the other states and yet overwhelmingly we are fine with it. It would just be nice if that help wasn't thrown in our face...
People as they get older realize that the pie in the sky help everyone does not work out. Resources are scarce and other people own them. All 'youth' think that.
This is the fundamental shift the world is going through, realizing that we can not continue on with insane private ownership that lets thousands live in opulence while millions go starving. Many of the Native Americans by and large had a much more egalitarian society where everyone worked together, the individualist ideas of Western culture have some merit but they are now tearing at the very fabric of human society. Summed up nicely by "fuck you I've got mine".
We have already reached the technological point where scarce resources are not that much of a problem for human survival, but you keep beating that dead horse. Other people are busy creating / supporting a better future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:29PM
Le sigh, backpedaling like a true champion, good job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:33PM
No, my proposal was not serious, just a rebuttal to all the people saying "yeah, get rid of California!" It was basically a bit of satire to throw back.
I understand now. It was not clear to me.
Many of the Native Americans by and large had a much more egalitarian society where everyone worked together
I studied native american history for a few years. It is not all the sunshine and lollipops that they show you on TV. It was a fairly brutal way to live. They got eviscerated by the very idea you are trying for. The idea no one owns anything. They found out that those who DO own things can afford to buy guns and people to man them. The concept of ownership was foreign to them. They understand it *very* well now. But back then they felt they were getting one over on 'the pale face'. To them it was nothing more than a game. By the point they realized they had been had it was too late. Take for example the oil thing happening now with one of the tribes. No one gave a damn about them until there was money and oil involved. A bunch of NIMBYs are taking advantage of them. They will realize again too late they have been had. Either by the gov, the NIMBYs, or the oil company.
California is one of the economic powerhouses of the US
If you remove apple and google it is not quite as sunny. Do not confuse the prosperity of a few companies that hire a small percentage of the population with the health of the rest of the economy. I picked those two as they are both companies that could conceivably pick up its entire labor force and move somewhere else if they liked. Labor participation rate is at a 40 year low right now. It sounds as if you are grasping at ways to fix it. There is no nice way to fix it. No clean fix. Basic income only works until the inflationary measure it creates catches up in the market. Low level base jobs are being automated away. With nothing to replace them. Min wage is going up and locking more people out of the labor pool. Companies are not doing as good so they hire as little as possible and skirt as many laws as they can get away with. We can tax the companies more but they just pass it on as an expense to those who already can not afford it.
We have already reached the technological point where scarce resources are not that much of a problem for human survival, but you keep beating that dead horse. Other people are busy creating / supporting a better future.
My points was the economies of all of the states are mingled. To remove one would hurt them all. Especially the one removed. Not about resources. I used resources as a point to show how unprepared cali would be for that sort of move. People with resources would take advantage of the situation and many would suffer for the 'noble' idea that cali is better than the others. We are americans. In the slogan of one of our presidential candidates. We are stronger together. Even if we disagree :)
Only one thing leads to economic prosperity. That is building things (we both can agree on this I hope). I like to recommend this book to those who disagree and think you can just manage the money better. http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/contents.html [steshaw.org] I like to recommend this book as it shows why the very things we try to do to help others ends up harming them even worse. It is a good read even if you do not agree with it from an ideological POV. It shows the major pitfalls of the solutions we keep trying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:13PM
I agree with most of those as well, except for the economics and native american bits.
Native Americans understand private property now because that is the system they have to work with. On the reservation things are different, though they still have problems with private ownership and greed within the tribe.
Economics: its all just a system to help humans exchange goods and services, at a certain point building more things is actually detrimental, and doing anything solely for the sake of "the economy" is a backwards approach. Do things to solve human problems, let the economy just be a secondary game hardly necessary for daily survival. I have spent lots of time optimizing things that have no monetary benefit to myself, so I don't believe we humans require a profit motive to accomplish things. I'm sure there are good points in that book you linked, but I stopped at the beginning of chapter 2 when he argues that a hoodlum breaking a window is actually beneficial to the economy. That may be true, but it fails to account for the environmental concerns of wasting energy / resources fixing something that shouldn't have needed fixing. It also takes resources away from building new housing. With such basic assumptions forming the foundation of his book I am not going to bother continuing since there will be subsequent errors built upon the flawed assumptions.
Social safety nets should not be considered from a monetary perspective, when done that way it is near impossible to see the benefits. You need to view things from a human perspective first, and monetary concerns come second.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @01:09AM
You may want to actually finish the chapter. He makes his point in the last paragraph.
The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.
tl;dr you broke something, and other things are not done because of it.
Also damn its like maybe 3 paragraphs of text... You read it with a closed mind and learned nothing. If you *read* the whole thing you will see why social programs tend to fail and why. If you want to build systems that work you *must* work around those issues. They are important if you actually want to help someone with those programs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:38AM
Just scanned through your link, Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
There is at least one huge unwritten premise behind his book -- that the markets are in some ways "fair". What we have now is possibly like a repeat of the Robber Baron era in the late 1800s, where a few super rich buy politicians to further enrich themselves...also known as corruption. Corruption on a scale never imagined. Nothing works right when there are billionaires throwing their weight around.
Further, based on the examples set by the super rich, people that might act like good competing capitalists in "normal times" develop the great urge to become monopolists (while usually hiding behind a screen of "just a successful capitalist"). And the lack of regulation (through subversion of government) lets monopoly and other unfair practice grow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:09AM
Jeezus!
No system operates well with corruption. Blaming markets is just ignorant (no, they are not fair, they are self-correcting), and pulling out the Robber Baron trope is just ignorant (recall spending for Hilary was 10 to 1).
You're being willfully obtuse.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:56PM
Of course it's unlikely the feds will let you go peacefully but I wish they would. You could build your silly socialist utopia and be forced to come face to face with what a distopia that actually is, you might even learn a lesson. And the rest of the country would be a lot better off without you dragging us down.
The only tragedy would be northern cali. There are actually a few decent communities there. Maybe they should secede from the secession.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:13PM
"Silly socialist utopia" hmmm, you really don't know much beyond what you hear on Fox news huh?
Quick clue for you: we are already in a dystopian socialist nightmare where we pay for the safety nets but the scared conservative types ruin every implementation so they hardly do much real good. The only thing I would change is to fully socialize healthcare and education, and in the past we pretty much had education already set. Then the profiteers came in saying how they would make everything better and more efficient, turns out they just jacked up prices and have saddled entire generations with unsustainable debt. Yay free market is best /s
Multiple other countries have implemented these changes while maintaining individual economic freedom. The successful versions are a blend of pure free market capitalism and social safety nets. Instead of realizing this, most anti-socialist people come up with reasons why it wouldn't work in the US or how terrible it is to have the government take a huge chunk of your paycheck. Nevermind that the successful socialist countries have statistically better indexes across the board for education, health, and happiness.
"We must stand strong against the Reds!"
Kool-aid, it refreshes your thirst while washing your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:33AM
Um, bullshit.
Especially since all of your "utopia" efforts need not be done at the state level, but can be proven by your rich cities. Or are you telling me the conservative stronghold in San Francisco is why the streets smell of urine?
Other countries have had to claw themselves out of disastrous welfare policies (re: Sweden from the 70s), and at least most understand any welfare program is essential a deal with the devil. You have to be mindful of costs so they don't ultimately destroy your economy.
However, from the 1970s and onwards Sweden's GDP growth fell behind other industrialised countries and the country's per capita ranking fell from 4th to 14th place in a few decades.[172] From the mid-1990s until today Sweden's economic growth has once again accelerated and has been higher than in most other industrialised countries (including the US) during the last 15 years.[173] A report from the United Nations Development Program predicted that Sweden's rating on the Human Development Index will fall from 0.949 in 2010 to 0.906 in 2030.[174]
Sweden began slowing the expansion of the welfare state in the 1980s, and even trimming it back, and according to the OECD and McKinsey, Sweden has recently been relatively quick to adopt economic liberalisation policies, such as deregulation, compared to countries such as France.[144][175] The current Swedish government is continuing the trend of moderate rollbacks of previous social reforms.[144][176] Growth has been higher than in many other EU-15 countries. Also since the mid-1980s, Sweden has had the fastest growth in inequality of any developed nation, according to the OECD. This has largely been attributed to the reduction in state benefits and a shift toward the privatisation of public services.
Keep your cancer to yourself.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:32PM
but the scared conservative types ruin every implementation
Can't have a successful Big Brother without an Emmanuel Goldstein scapegoat.
Nevermind that the successful socialist countries have statistically better indexes across the board for education, health, and happiness.
And the unsuccessful ones don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @11:03PM
Name one.
...and if you name a Oligarchical Liberal Democracy with elements of State Capitalism and without Democracy in the Workplace, I will point out that your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 25 2016, @03:10AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25 2016, @10:27PM
You are still are omitting the quotation marks around words that are clearly-established bullshit.
No country has ever come anywhere close to the meaning of that word as defined by Marx.
Though they -claim- to be following Marx's works, the "Commies" shit all over his idea and set up Totalitarian governments.
The Mensheviks, who had the better, more worker-centric plan, were quashed in the early days of Leninism.
In 1921, even before Lenin was dead, the Bolsheviks had set up a board of directors [google.com] that wasn't answerable to The Workers.
Their State Capitalism was very much like other examples of Capitalism.
lack of democracy in the workplace
...is called Capitalism.
is just another variant of socialism
Your deep ignorance of economic systems is on display yet again.
You are describing OLIGARCHY, which is a GOVERNMENTAL system.
...and, as already mentioned, Capitalist exploitation of The Workers.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 26 2016, @12:44AM
Their State Capitalism was very much like other examples of Capitalism.
It's not even close. Like claiming fake diamonds are diamonds.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:10PM
"I am governor Jerry Brown, my aura smiles and never frowns"...
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:17PM
Soon I will be president..
lol
(Score: 2) by xpda on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:15PM
Didn't they have a war about this once?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:18PM
Personally, I have long thought that secession should be a fundamental right. More, it should be encouraged. Governments are like companies: big is usually bad, smaller is usually better. Beyond a certain size, the shareholders (company) / citizens (country) no longer have any real control over how the place is run.
Clearly, there need to be guidelines: some minimal geographic size, geographic contiguity, and a super-majority of residents. If those are all fulfulled, fine, secede.
The place you are seceding from should have no say in the matter - of course they will object, if only because they stand to lose pride, and the politicians stand to lose power. Maybe if parts of the country can leave at will, the politicians will be more motivated to govern well.
Just to pick one random example of many [wikipedia.org]: Why should Catalonia not be allowed to secede from Spain? Why should Spanish politicians, or even the rest of Spain, have any say about it? If it were up to the Catalonians, they would already be gone.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:21AM
Well... that gets you to the libertarian paradise. Every person is entitled to be their own nation-state. The extent of that nation-state is whatever they are willing and able to defend with force against all would be takers. Everyone can do whatever fuck all that they want unless someone is prepared to invade and stop them.
I won't speak to the justice of Cali or Texas or Catalonia or Kurdistan, but if you defend secession as a 'fundamental right' then you are saying that nobody but himself should be able to tell David Duke what he can do on his land. Are you prepared to disavow David Duke's fundamental rights?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:38AM
In the end, I believe secession as an inevitability as the ties that bind are far weaker than the histrionics that tear us apart, and especially as there is a push for a stronger federal government which is increasingly used vindictively.
There is lack of recognition of other states as sovereign except by making it formal through secession, so as that is the only option available, more and more states will move in that direction.
The sad part is that much of this could be avoided by weakening the federal government, but the ideologues find it impossible to let others find their own level.
(Score: 1) by davefx on Friday November 25 2016, @05:32AM
Catalonia currently shouldn't secede from Spain because there doesn't exist that super-majority of residents wanting to be out of Spain.
Nevertheless, this problem shouldn't be seen in a simplistic way as rights. For example: let's suppose that a territory, after being benefitted by a central government to become an industry and commerce center for decades with low taxes, high-level infrastructures, and having received immigration from other places in the country without those benefits... decides to secede from the rest of the country, as they are very rich, and other parts of the country are poor and they don't want to support them.
I can't see that as fair under any point of view...
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:22PM
As a Californian, I see no particular reason to leave. However, it the auto companies get their way and CARB is forced to follow national standards my mind could be changed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:24PM
I say round these people up and force them out of California. These idiots don't speak for Californians, they are the Silicon Valley shills that think their shit don't stink. And, I voted Trump.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:53PM
"I say round these people up and force them out of California. These idiots don't speak for Californians, they are the Silicon Valley shills that think their shit don't stink."
So you are advocating censoring someones free speech because you don't agree with what they are saying? They may be idiot shills but last I checked Cali hasn't overturned the 1st Amendment. Yet.
" And, I voted Trump."
Given that you posted as AC you must not be too proud of that.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:00PM
Yeah, calls for death, internment, or some other type of physical violence always seem to come from these conservative types. The irony is totally lost on them, they're too busy getting their rage fix to see that their enemy is not who they think it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @06:50PM
and sometimes you are just being a Gigantopuss, as we are not being super serious...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:25PM
Between New California and Old USA? Shouldn't there be some sort of security, so we don't have massive influxes of immigrants, drug dealers and rapists from one side to the other?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:47PM
Build a wall!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:52PM
Who's going to pay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:08PM
The Californians! Duh!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:20PM
I think the state of Texas should pay, that will make the financing a lot easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:42PM
Texas would just open a theme park along the border, offering 10 shots for $5 to anything trying to escape.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:29PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:42PM
I see satire just does not play here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:33PM
By the logic of your president-elect, the people you want to keep out are responsible for paying for the wall. So to answer your question, the US government is responsible for paying for a wall to keep the unwashed masses out of California.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:45PM
In November 2015, the idea would have been laughable.
However, unless we're all going to wake up in 6 weeks time and discover its January 2016 again and the last year was all a really bad dream...
Here in the UK, there's now a distinct chance that Scotland will demand a second independence vote, so that they can stay in the EU (which probably makes economic sense for them), and that would quite likely pass (Cameron and Osbourne, with their usual brilliance, made continued EU membership a big deal in the last Scottish independence referendum). Depending on the timing, that could bolster a "Calexit" campaign just like the Brexit vote bolstered Trump supporters (hence the current "Don and Nigel sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g" circus).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:03PM
Nope, it can't / won't happen. California is too economically important, and a huge amount of our defense industry is based there as well. There is also no general sentiment around here to support this, the idea fails before it even begins.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:45PM
Even more Brexit-like :-) "There is no appetite currently for another Scottish independence referendum." -- The Political Establishment including the Brexiteers.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:18PM
Stop screwing up electronics, diesel engines, gas cans, and everything else. CARB(California Air Resource Board) compliant gas cans, for instance are tragically worthless. For some idiotic reason people adopt standards good for all 50 states, rather than just not selling to California so we all suffer with substandard crap. Please leave, California. Your strong budget, weak border and obvious military prowess will see you through the tough couple years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:51PM
I went to a Cali auto parts store looking to buy a good old Jerry type gas can, nope... Illegal to sell in Cali. All you can buy are shitty plastic ones that leak through the spout threads and have an anti-leak valve in the spout. Fuck the CARB... Right after my smog check I put the performance intake on and advance the timing 5 degrees, more power and better gas mileage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:38PM
Its hard to say whether the better mileage amounts to more or less pollution. Smog controls are vital to keeping our air clean, I just can't argue the exact point since better mileage means less gas burned, but bypassing smog controls means more pollution in the air per gallon burned. Its not some stupid regulation for the sake of regulation, Los Angeles used to be so bad you couldn't see the mountains except right after a good rain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @11:43PM
For some idiotic reason people adopt standards good for all 50 states, rather than just not selling to California so we all suffer with substandard crap.
*cough* Texas State Board of Education *cough*
Yay for the war of Northern Aggression, Intelligent Design, and countless other gems throughout the years.
Actually, it seems like California has done more in 2 weeks to move to independence than Texas has done for generations. Then again, I could be wrong about how little Texas has done besides bluster. Have they ever done real concrete moves to succeed?
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:32PM
Let’s say that the feds some how let CA out of the union peacefully, only confiscating all their bank assets or something. How do you expect to keep the red parts of CA and the working class in line? If you subjugate them by force, they’ll seek aid from the States, and now the US can now come in not peacefully and take back control.
You should try though. I’d love to see you get kicked out of your ivory tower.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:40PM
I was anticipating an exchange.
Offer amnesty for The People's Republic of Boulder to repatriate their native lands in exchange for the rednecks outside of city limits.
Watch the entire economy of California collapse once the oil needs changing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:41PM
Your assumptions are just so very off base. Get away from our towers and back to your mud hole!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:22PM
Why not let Oregon and Washington State join, and maybe Nevada? Left alone, there wouldn't be enough national Democrat votes anymore in what's left of the US to counter red voters. Without CA's votes, DC wouldn't have enough blue influence to counter red representatives. The rest of the blue states would be stuck with red rulers, which I'm sure they don't want.
How about a giant upside-down "U" shaped nation that includes the West and East coasts and the upper north? Idaho, Montana, and N. Dakota may not want in, though splitting the blue sections between coasts.
Lincoln should have let the South go. The South always has been listening to a different beat.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @04:45AM
As noted near the top, the separation of N.Cal, Oregon and Washington State is discussed in "Ecotopia: The Notebooks and Reports of William Weston" by Ernest Callenbach, 1975. Worth a read to see just how far utopian ideals can be stretched.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @10:50PM
Let the world watch as a pure liberal agenda goes down in flames.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 24 2016, @03:53AM
In California we have a group calling for secession just because a candidate they didn't like won. It's spur of the moment (they were fine with things until Trump won), ill-thought, and put forward by people who are currently driving California into the ground. Systemic ills like the public pensions mess, water mismanagement, and the stranglehold of environmentalism on California economic matters will bankrupt the state sooner or later.
But having California secede from the US would allow the rest of us to care a lot less about what happens to California.