mmoffitt's thought experiment: let's discuss

Post #390,622 by rcareaga 6/11/14 2:17:32 PM Reply	mmoffitt's thought experiment: let's discuss I cannot possibly know what would happen in America post-revolution, but if I understand your question, you're asking me what I'd hope happened. I can speak to that a little. In my view, the United States is a failed experiment. The form of government enshrined in the US Constitution could (and did) work very well for a nation of 6 million. It almost became completely undone when the population hit 31 million in 1860. It does not perform well at all for a nation of 320 million. One could argue, I suppose, that it is still working very well for the 10 million or so who live in Manhattan, New York and Boston. There seems to me to be some critical population size for which democracy no longer functions well. If we include Russia and drop the Vatican in our definition of "Europe" we end up with around 12.8 million people per country. Drop Russia (with its population of roughly 143 million) from the definition and we end up with fewer than 10.5 million per country. Countries of the size of 10-20 million in close geographic proximity have a much better chance of sanity in their governance. So, a better post-revolution US would be a loose confederation of new, independent states. A common government with no power save "the common defense" could be configured with the existing armed forces remaining roughly unchanged. The states would all contribute to the funding and manning of these forces. Basically form a US "EU" + NATO with new nation states (having nothing to do with the old states of the US) consisting of no more than 20 million or so. I think this, or something very like this, is ultimately what will happen and I genuinely believe it will be better. But I know it's not "right around the corner" and I'm not going to live long enough to see it. Perhaps my daughter's won't either, I can't say. But I'm convinced what I've laid out here in broad strokes is the end game of the dis-USA. I hope it comes to pass and soon, but I'm doubtful. This disfunctioning oligarchy will drag on for as long as Progressives can find the stomach to continue voting for enemies of the People because they are "less bad than someone else.” Although mmoffitt and I spar more frequently than we agree, I find myself not entirely out of sympathy with his prescription here. The Constitution was, notwithstanding some conspicuous natal flaws—slavery, cough, cough—a worthy undertaking in self-government that has endured for a remarkably long time (mmoffitt puts the sell-by date at some time prior to Lincoln’s election, but we all know that he is that rare creature, a Confederate Commie), but which has displayed unmistakable symptoms of sclerosis in recent decades. His solution? Divestiture. He prescribes “a loose confederation of new, independent states. A common government with no power save ‘the common defense’ could be configured with the existing armed forces remaining roughly unchanged.” I’m seeing a problem right there. Once we’ve divorced into fifteen independent states (mmoffitt regards 20 million as the approximate maximum for a working democracy), can we really maintain a unified NATO-like armed force? NATO, after all, was imposed upon a cowed, broken Europe for the purpose of, as Lord Ismay memorably quipped, keeping “the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” What will be incentive for our infant statelets to maintain an integrated army? How will General Robert E. Lee IV feel any more inclined to keep his troops in line should the Tidewater Republic vote to annex the neighboring Commonwealth of Shenandoah without the consent of the other legacy nations? Remember, after this (in the best case) amicable divorce, we’re still left with these knuckle-dragging cracker fuckwits in the South. They’ve been with us since the colonial days; they’ll still be a big and consistently manipulable part of the demographic for the rest of the century. So let’s say that the good white yeomen of Ozark, Mammoth, Blue Ridge and other newly self-governing entities impose stringent new “voter ID” requirements, and that the new national legislatures reimpose many of the most fondly-remembered features of Jim Crow. This will probably get the city-state of Greater New York all bent out of shape, and the liberal do-gooders there will howl for intervention. Again, who gets first call on the services of the “existing armed forces?” I think that there’s a good argument to be made for breaking up the United States. The founding documents of the Republic are magnificent blocks in what used to be optimistically called “The Building of the Human City,” but we now see that the building codes were not consulted, and that if you undertake to erect a “shining city on a hill,” you should damn well consult a soil engineer to make certain that your foundation is laid on stable terrain. Once the USA is broken up, I’m fairly optimistic for those of us on the Left Coast. True, the inland population from about a hundred miles away and thence east to the Rockies hate us, and are abundantly provided with small arms, but I’m pretty sure they can be subdued. Should mmoffitt’s vision of 15-20 independent nations be magically realized tomorrow, I would be prepared to bet serious money that within a decade these globs of fanciful mercury will have recoalesced, not without some interim unpleasantness, into three or four larger players rather like AT&T when it was supposedly “broken up.” Thoughts? cordially,
Post #390,626 by boxley 6/11/14 2:48:59 PM Reply	how is your spanish? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #390,627 by folkert 6/11/14 3:09:38 PM Reply	Explain your point, with great length please. Quips are goo for this kind of discussion. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #390,673 by boxley 6/11/14 10:30:30 PM Reply	no problema carnecita http://viajaracalifornia.webnode.es/historia/ Anexión a Estados Unidos La derrota mexicana obligó a México a firmar el Tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo y ceder California a Estados Unidos, junto con las demás Provincias Interiores, en 1848. Ese mismo año se descubrió oro en California y llegaron muchas personas para buscar oro y probar suerte. California se convirtió en estado el 1850 pero más adelante parte de California se repartió en otros nuevos estados, como Nevada y parte de Arizona. En 1850 Abraham Lincoln fue nombrado presidente, pero grandes diferencias socio-culturales llevaron a una guerra entre las fuerzas políticas y sociales de Estados Unidos. Con una mayoría de habla hispana, rcareaga que el país puede ser el español como primera lengua. Es por eso que le pregunté acerca de su competencia. Sería tan amable de chinga du cabra payaso el culo Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #390,691 by folkert 6/12/14 9:23:29 AM Reply	You really are... A Dolt. How hard would it have been to run that through Google Translate? Not hard at all. Especially considering you made the comment you made afterwards... was poorly worded for a "native speaker" apparently Google Translated into Spanish. Or is it boxlish in Spanish also? From the website you quoted... nicely that you cherry-picked from that, in particular. wink-wink. Annexation to the United States The Mexican defeat forced Mexico to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and cede California to the United States, along with other Interior Provinces in 1848. That same year gold was discovered in California and many people for gold and try his luck arrived. California became a state 1850 but later part of California was divided into new states like Nevada and parts of Arizona. In 1850 Abraham Lincoln became president, but large socio-cultural differences led to a war between the political and social forces of the United States. And no... you recently seem to be the Ass Clown. And since you mention goats... have at it bucko. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #390,696 by rcareaga 6/12/14 10:20:31 AM Reply	boys, boys I feel your pain, folkert, but really only as a distant echo of trolls past. Compared to some of these—let us say, to Frmn Kckng N*ng—Master Oxley at his most perverse comes off as a combination of Demosthenes and Mister Rogers. Cut him and you some slack, please, or you're going to give yourself an aneurysm. As to boxley's point, my cousins are not as yet a majority in the state, although I believe they reached plurality status a while back. I think they're a welcome component in the mix, but their economic power is likely to remain incommensurate with their numbers for some while yet. cordially,
Post #390,697 by boxley 6/12/14 10:31:34 AM Reply	depending upon how the state breaks down as well as states like new mexico, southern texas and parts of arizona there may well be latino countries in the mix. If so how would that be integrated into moffit's federation or would they seek alliances elsewhere? In any case political turmoil is a lure for hard charging folks like the cartels. They are organized with a strong financial backing. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #390,698 by rcareaga 6/12/14 10:47:13 AM Reply	excellent point political turmoil is a lure for hard charging folks like the cartels Cartels, demagogues, what you will. The United States of America is a giant bottle containing a mixture of poisons. Note that "containing." When the bottle breaks, a lot of nasty stuff is going to come spilling out. I doubt whether any of these ingredients will combine to form Utopia. cordially,
Post #390,700 by mmoffitt 6/12/14 11:08:39 AM Reply	Re: lure for hard charging folks like the cartels. Hence my call for a "common defensive militia." If there were Latino states constructed who, say, wanted alliances with Spain or Mexico (although I think the latter unlikely) I don't think it would be up to anyone but the citizens of that state to decide.
Post #390,628 by mmoffitt 6/11/14 3:38:42 PM Reply	I'd be willing to forego the common militia. My initial thought was that it was necessary to thwart any attempts at landgrabbing from, say, China, Russia and/or India. Without a common defense, how could the Tidewater Republic stave off an attack from one of those 21st century "superpowers"? The details would be messy, but isn't that what Conventions are for? To work those details out? You mention NATO being force fed to Europe. I don't disagree, but do we not now see States attempting to join NATO of their own accord? I don't think the idea of a standing army for the common protection of the member states is necessarily unworkable. How will General Robert E. Lee IV feel any more inclined to keep his troops in line should the Tidewater Republic vote to annex the neighboring Commonwealth of Shenandoah without the consent of the other legacy nations? I'm not sure that such an attempted annexation would be within the common militia's sphere of concern. I'm not suggesting that this common militia be the only militia. A state could decide that it wants its own standing army. I was thinking the common military would be only a defensive force who would combat attacks from without upon any state or group of states. Attacking a member state for any reason should be expressly forbidden. (Aside: Here we see the bleeding through of the Stars and Bars in my thinking.) One thing that would have to be allowed is free, unimpeded movement from any state to any other state for all people. It would thereby be none of The State of Greater New York's business what happened in the knuckle dragging Blue Ridge. The Blue Ridge and Greater New York would be different sovereign nations. Any oppressed peoples could simply migrate to nations where they would not be victimized - sort of an above ground underground railroad, if you will.
Post #390,636 by rcareaga 6/11/14 4:54:31 PM Reply	"free, unimpeded movement" I do believe that we've seen this sort of thing in living memory on the eastern side of the Adriatic. What did they call it? Wait, it'll come to me...of course! "Ethnic cleansing!" Suppose that the adjacent "nations" are disinclined to grant refuge or even passage to the "oppressed peoples?" There are always mass graves, I suppose. "Free, unimpeded movement" to be enforced how, exactly? "Attacking a member state for any reason should be expressly forbidden." Ayup. That'll work. I can't really see "China, Russia and/or India" landing Higgins Boats on our sacred shores, although I suppose the Russians might plausibly reclaim Alaska (which would surely afford mmoffitt a certain wintry satisfaction, given that its purchase was negotiated by a Lincoln associate) (and Ashton's ancestor), and I suspect that the various successor states would share my skepticism, shoring up their existing disinclination to contribute coin to the common good. Your Compact of Disunion, however practical and enlightened its terms, would not survive the violation by one or two legacy entities: either disintegration or forcible reintegration on behalf of a coalition of other actors would follow. Next? cordially,
Post #390,688 by mmoffitt 6/12/14 8:47:10 AM Reply	Dude, don't kill my Utopian Buzz. Remember I said, "What I'd hope would happen," to kick things off. As Chinese and Russian diets become closer to American diets, their reliance on corn for feed will only increase. That'd make the "I" states targets. As for enforcement of free movement, that could be the responsibility of the common defense, who would report to some sort of council comprised of representatives of the various states. But I'm not (as you've suggested previously) delusional or suffering from any "symptoms of sclerosis." What I expect to happen is for the US to fail and break apart with all the problems (and possibly a great many more) that you've suggested will arise from my model. We cannot sustain our present configuration, no matter how true some folks remain to the notion that "we've got it pretty good." How long can a nation remain the world's leading debtor before complete collapse? We're pushing 30 years with that moniker - far longer than I thought we'd get away with it. Moreover, our federal government is a complete sham. Our legislators don't even pretend to write (or read!) legislation anymore. In the main, corporate lobbyists write the bills and deliver them to our so-called representatives for signatures. These interests are virtually all located in the worthless thumb of the US generally, and New York and Massachussets more specifically. Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil and Wall Street are the only entities served by our federal government. It's everywhere you look; from the Health Insurance Corporation Subsidy Law (aka Obamacare) to the fact that if you have worked hard, completed a graduate degree and are unfortunate enough to have most of your income derived from earned income (read: salaried professional) you will be taxed at a rate roughly four times that of Billy Gates and Warren Buffet unless you give huge chunks of your money to Wall Street Banksters directly. When the Feds even bother to pass laws that affect, say, the kindergarten teacher in Huntsville, AL or Pocatello, ID, it is always to their detriment. The federal laws and guidelines hold them responsible for the IQ's of their students, back for-profit corporations to replace their public schools, tenure is now a thing of the past even in Progressive California, etc. sic nauseum. The United States will collapse into a host of separate nations because eventually, everyone outside of Manhattan and Boston will recognize that they are no longer the concern of the federal government. If enough of us die in the revolution (hopefully, at least a few of our tactical nukes will be used domestically. This is even more likely to be the case since Obama has set the precedent that the President can kill any Americans he chooses), those that are left might be able to construct a federation as I roughly described. Those governments, serving a smaller number of people in close geographic proximity would naturally be more responsive to the regional needs of its people. At the very least, such governments would be vastly more responsive to the People's needs than the current puppets of Wall Street in Washington today.
Post #390,695 by rcareaga 6/12/14 10:05:14 AM Reply	brief clarification & then I said that the Constitution was sclerotic, not you. How long can a nation remain the world's leading debtor before complete collapse? There's an old quip—sufficiently old that I won't bother adjusting it for inflation, and will attribute it to Doctor Evil—to the effect of "When you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank owns you, When you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, you own the bank." I share in broad outline your sense that the country appears increasingly untenable as a going concern. A savvy woman of my acquaintance, now ninety, is fond of pooh-poohing these fears: "We survived x; we'll survive y. You'll see." I think, "Maybe yes, maybe no, but nobody ever gets past z." We differ, of course, with regard to your utopian buzz. There are many more ways of being completely fucked up than there are of being merely dysfunctional. When the Divided States, post-union diplomacy having failed them, reach the grave impasse where the alternatives facing them are genocide or mass slaughter, I pray that they will find the wisdom to choose correctly. cordially,
Post #390,701 by drook 6/12/14 11:44:46 AM Reply	I'll bet you're a Kunstler fan -- Drew
Post #390,703 by rcareaga 6/12/14 12:16:48 PM Reply	or conceivably of these folks This site bills itself as "Pro-White, Pro-South, Pro-Independence." I link to the particular discussion because several of the comments are fascinating. When one sympathetic dissenter objects, "all very well and good, but what're we gonna do with all the blacks?" the proprietor says that once the reimposition of Jim Crow, which he asserts with approval is already underway, is put firmly in place post-independence, the nigras will head north of their own accord. I must say that there is something almost refreshing when our southern brethren leave off with the winks and nudges and let their freak flags (Confederate battle flag, natch) fly. Kidding aside, I should clarify here that I don't actually imagine that mmoffitt, notwithstanding his avowed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression, may be justly classed with these loons. But you know, there does appear to be a growing collection of constituencies who, having little else in common (Ecotopia and New Dixie, to name just two), believe for various reasons in national devolution. Friend mmoffitt inclines to think that this could be a good development, and I am disposed to believe that things could go pear-shaped pretty quickly. The breakup of the USSR, however traumatic the first decade may have been, was really a pretty soft landing, almost astonishingly so. Here, I think, Yugoslavia would be the likelier model. For my part I very much prefer the lumbering, vast, unwieldy devil I know to the score of nimbler, crueler imps I see bursting forth from that devil's corpse. cordially,
Post #390,736 by Ashton 6/12/14 7:59:45 PM Reply	Hmmm.. a Gantt-chart of these overlapping mind-sets would resemble a pointillist's first-draft canvas. A downside to the genius of Edward Tufte is that, now anyone can conjure-up (via antidotes to Power Punt) that which appears to corroborate fervid hookah-dreams. Maybe I can skim more replies; a few seem pithy on first-pass, but my brain hurts. (It is not just the lumpen-folk who can never be quite sure how their newly elected/or selected pig-in-poke might squeal, once anointed.
Post #390,713 by rcareaga 6/12/14 2:39:37 PM 6/12/14 5:09:10 PM Reply	another imagined contention The Republic of Greater Texas, which has the Gulf of Mexico sewn up to a hundred miles or so east of the present Florida border, really, really wants that Keystone XL pipeline down from the Grand Duchy of Alberta. Problem is, the Commonwealth of Ogallala has become unexpectedly protective of its eponymous aquifer, and is demanding extortionate terms to which no true Texan could acquiesce with honor. It'll be necessary to send the Lone Star Army through sparsely populated Shiprock, and to annex its eastern reaches, on the way to occupying and subduing the Ogallalans. California's President Brown is about as keen to have Texas controlling the Colorado River as Bush the Elder was at the prospect of Kuwait's oilfields in Saddam Hussein's pocket. The Guns of August thereupon morphs from cautionary tale into instruction manual. cordially, Edited by rcareaga June 12, 2014, 05:09:10 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #390,745 by mmoffitt 6/13/14 9:18:40 AM Reply	I wonder. Do you think the fact that you are not a Marxist enables you to more easily imagine situations where things could go pear shaped than how things might be better? I think you've acknowledged that we roughly agree on the current situation being untenable in the long term, but we disagree on whether the impending break-up would be good or bad. Do you think it could be that our difference on the subject is a manifestation of our predispositions?
Post #390,747 by rcareaga 6/13/14 10:09:16 AM Reply	That seems plausible Alas, I'm obliged to step back from the pixels these next 48 hours, so the discussion must needs proceed (or tail off) without me... cordially,
Post #390,631 by gcareaga 6/11/14 4:32:46 PM Reply	Fare thee well My response to the Neo-Confederate secessionists is that they are welcome to leave under three conditions. They may not have nuclear arms. They must take a per capita share of the national debt with them. They may not come back. As to the nukes, any derivative regional state with a plurality of fundamentalist fuckwits must be denied access to fissile material. Nobody who thinks the rapture is real and something to be looked forward to can be trusted with such stuff.
Post #390,633 by mmoffitt 6/11/14 4:40:57 PM Reply	Left to their own devices ... do you really think they could build one even if they had access to fissile material?
Post #390,637 by rcareaga 6/11/14 5:03:17 PM Reply	Re: Left to their own devices ... The information is readily available. A crude nuke, or even a well-crafted nuke, is certainly within the capability of Texas. I mean, gimme a break. The fucking Pakis have the bomb! fissionably,
Post #390,642 by pwhysall 6/11/14 5:24:36 PM Reply	Heh The Pakis (as you so charmingly put it) are a people who, their jihadi enclaves notwithstanding, have a middle class that places almost as much stock in learning as the archetypical Asian Dad ("You get hepatitis B? Why not hepatitis A?" etc). Hell, it seems like every other surgeon and consultant in the NHS hails from Islamabad or Karachi.
Post #390,648 by rcareaga 6/11/14 5:47:02 PM Reply	I borrowed the term... (not typically in use on these benighted shores) from Old Blighty. My point being that if Pakistan with its third-world economy and relatively narrow stratum of educated technical personnel can assemble a nuclear weapon from a standing start in just a few decades, then Texas, with existing nuclear materials, a high-level scientific, educational and technological infrastructure, and, I do not doubt, hundreds of scientifically-capable political fuckwits, could cobble together a functional arsenal with just a few turns of a screwdriver within about 72 hours of independence. cordially,
Post #390,664 by Another Scott 6/11/14 8:31:58 PM Reply	Pakistan had help. FAS on Pakistan's nuclear weapons: Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972. India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities. In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987. [...] In the past, China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere. According to a 2001 Department of Defense report, China has supplied Pakistan with nuclear materials and expertise and has provided critical assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear facilities. In the 1990s, China designed and supplied the heavy water Khusab reactor, which plays a key role in Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National Nuclear Corporation also contributed to Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets, which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed rotation of centrifuges. According to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS, China is also reported to have provided Pakistan with the design of one of its warheads, which is relatively sophisticated in design and lighter than U.S. and Soviet designed first generation warheads. China also provided technical and material support in the completion of the Chasma nuclear power reactor and plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. The project had been initiated as a cooperative program with France, but Pakistan's failure to sign the NPT and unwillingness to accept IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear program caused France to terminate assistance. According to the Defense Department report cited above, Pakistan has also acquired nuclear related and dual-use and equipment and materials from the Former Soviet Union and Western Europe. Their first claimed nuclear explosion was in May 1998. The DOE has nuclear sites all around the country. Plus, there are the Air Force and Navy sites with nuclear weapons scattered all over. Keeping the technology out of the hands of teabaggers or neo-fascists would be very difficult... Cheers, Scott.
Post #390,687 by scoenye 6/12/14 8:46:26 AM Reply	Forget the nukes Scott Walker now has his own doomsday weapon. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/11/crazy-dangerous-creation-deadly-airborne-flu-virus
Post #390,733 by Ashton 6/12/14 7:09:05 PM Reply	Seems a predictably-insoluble conundrum.. indefinitely. If a One, supported by ept-Group, 'decides' it Needs: algorithm-W in order to obviate Horrific-algorithm-X happening on-its-own ... Who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters? I expect that only too-much can be said re ROI, infinitesimal Probabilities and very much linear-thinking + non-linear-Scaring. We don't handle things on this scale well, at all. (Most sci-fi novelettes are about such Ooopses, no?) {sigh}
Post #390,661 by boxley 6/11/14 7:55:06 PM Reply	Georgia already has the material and georgia tech grads can certainly build one Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #390,707 by gcareaga 6/12/14 12:50:16 PM Reply	Securing nuclear materials As a college student in the 1980s, I was often in a natural sciences laboratory building on campus. There was a door in a corridor opposite the vending machines. This door had a nuclear trefoil sticker on it and appeared to have the security precautions of a door to a custodian's closet. On the sticker was written 239Pu. Of all the buildings on Science Hill, this one was considered to be the most seismically sound. An older large laboratory building was scheduled for seismic retrofit and the consensus was that if the big one hit before the retrofit, that building was a goner. In 1989, a big one—if not THE big one—hit. The old seismically unsound building did fine. The new and safe building with the Plutonium inside came within five seconds of complete collapse. Going on a quarter century later, that building is still externally buttressed with large i-beams. The trefoil sticker is gone. College campuses and fissile material don't go well together. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Post #390,667 by Another Scott 6/11/14 8:57:11 PM Reply	It's not the number of people that matters. We're not going to put the US nuclear genie back in the bottle (see my earlier reply below), so the idea of somehow splitting the country up while a rump federal government keeps control over the nukes seems fatally flawed to me. But I want to push back on the premise. I don't think that 10-20M people is a limit for a reasonably well functioning democratic, broadly liberal, sane, government. California, with a population of ~ 38M, was governed by what could be described as "nut cases" not that long ago but has turned a corner. Kampuchea, a country of 8.5 M or so, was briefly ruled by genocidal psychopaths. Splitting up the USA would be a disaster. In addition to the nuclear weapons issues, the extreme variation in family income, infrastructure, social services, land use, etc., would get worse. Imagine the tolls and tariffs that would arise when you drove across the new boundaries. Imagine a country without a national EPA and living downstream from a mine or factory. Imagine importing food from Libertystan and not knowing what's in it. And don't forget that we tried a loose confederation of states without a strong federal government - the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work, that's why the Constitution was written in the first place. Later on, we tried living without a national FDA and wondered what was in our hot dogs along with the sawdust and rat parts... We've got it pretty good under our present form of government. We can refine and reinvent it every day if we choose and are willing to do the work. Throwing up our hands and saying we've got to throw it all away and start over because the oligarchs control too much is naive, it seems to me. The people who show up are the ones who will build the future. Don't accept that change will come from staying home. Remember what happened in the VA-7 primary last night... Turnout, Turnout, Turnout... My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #390,677 by a6l6e6x 6/11/14 11:22:13 PM Reply	California even survived Gov. Moonbeam! :) Back in the day... Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #390,680 by rcareaga 6/12/14 12:40:53 AM Reply	You're aware, aren't you ...that Mike Royko, who coined that flippant soubriquet in 1976, subsequently repudiated it? In 1980 he wrote “I have to admit I gave him that unhappy label...the more I see of Brown, the more I am convinced that he has been the only Democrat in this year’s politics who understands what this country will be up against.” Still later (in 1991), he called the label, an “idiotic, damn-fool, meaningless, throw-away line,” and pleaded with people to stop using it. I've long regarded Brown as one of the most interesting and intelligent figures in US politics. cordially,
Post #390,682 by Andrew Grygus 6/12/14 2:52:07 AM Reply	Every week I get several calls asking me to invest . . . . . in drilling oil and gas wells. A couple of years ago I got a call from some guy in Texas trying to sell me oil wells - and he pretty soon figured I wasn't buying, but he was in a talkative mood that day, so we had a short conversation, which got down to this: Texan: "Well, at least you folks in California have a really good governor." Me: "Well, you know, here in California, we believe in recycling - so we just re-elected Jerry Brown." Texan: "Oh no!" Yes, and prosperity is finally returning to California - not to the level when he was governor before, but we're doing better - his re-election is in the bag. And some of his "moon beam" ideas are now standard practice in all the Blue States.
Post #390,720 by Ashton 6/12/14 4:48:29 PM Reply	My first thought on first hearing the Moonbeam appellation was the obvious one: the utterly predictable manifestation exactly, of Alex's excellent Sig. My namesake, having studied in a seminary, apparently acquired the sense of proportionality of that liberal education which many parents hoped would result, even in the then-America (supposing that young Genghis did not expire via some stupid frat-house initiation.) This automatically placed him in diametric opposition to such as would coalesce, finally as the Ronnie Rogues of Trickle-down and the Neo- rampant language-atrocities of reactionary minds. He grokked adequately, I thought, the cauldron of roiling What-Ifs? whose epicenter was, of course Berkeley du jour. The rest is in legible histories. (Clearly we agree that, as CA dwellers we are fucking-Lucky to have such a one as Gov, within times so parlous as to spawn legions who worship lunacy and call it patriotism.) Junk-words which insinuate themselves into (today's) framing-weapon are surely more powerful than nukes (which you can't Use/just threaten with.) It's still the Biggest crap-shoot ever. Wisdom surely resided in many of the Founding Mothers, but we now have a Majority of runts-of-the litter. "Politics" this diseased happens only at.. the denouement of any enterprise, as every historian has warned. We kill-em-off or assuredly become their thralls, dining on McRat Nuggets. It's D-Day 2014-16+ Ring! that fucking-Tocsin (that Human Events icon for assembling all their mouth-breathers for mayhem.)
Post #390,727 by a6l6e6x 6/12/14 6:22:43 PM Reply	Did you note the smiley? He was not terribly effective the first time. Now, he's probably the most effective governor in the US. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #390,730 by rcareaga 6/12/14 6:33:09 PM Reply	Noted, yes, but Not clear as to whether irony or a smirk was intended. Brown's first two terms were not bad at all, particularly measured against the governership of the Blessed Saint Alzheimer. cordially,
Post #390,734 by a6l6e6x 6/12/14 7:32:11 PM Reply	Well, Prop 13 comes to mind. That sure cut into spending on schools and used up the state's surplus. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #390,735 by rcareaga 6/12/14 7:57:12 PM Reply	Re: Well, Prop 13 comes to mind. Not exactly a Brown initiative, though he certainly acquiesced to the fait accompli. Do you remember what the Prop 13's proponents held forth as their main argument? California was running a budget surplus under Brown. No one wants to talk about that now. cordially,
Post #390,759 by Ashton 6/13/14 4:44:01 PM Reply	Wiki-P gives a decent synopsis of Gann/Jarvis' motives and.. barely limns the Loss to CA brainpower subsequently. While I benefited from the thing, (especially its timing: a few years before peddling my manse in Kensington) I can't claim prescience of just How-horrible would be the fall-out of this putative subsidy for old-folks-staying in-house in perpetuum. (And I Should have grokked that immediately; all ye need know is Alex's/Asimov Sig.)
Post #390,744 by mmoffitt 6/13/14 9:09:29 AM Reply	I remember my dad accurately predicting Prop 13 would destroy CA schools. I graduated from high school out there in 1977, so that was my first year of college, which was tuition free at the time. If you bought a parking permit and library card (not required) at Long Beach City College, you paid a whopping $12.00 to take up to 18 credits (without those, the 18 credits were absolutely FREE). Dad was teaching at Millikan High School in Long Beach at the time. Some things that disappeared were California's high schools ranking among the best in the nation. I took Semantics, Linguistics, American Short Story, American Novel, European Short Story, and European Novel in high school. Not a damned chance of that now. But, hey, everybody gets to keep "their money" so it's all good.
Post #390,689 by mmoffitt 6/12/14 8:48:54 AM Reply	Why not provide all states with nukes, then? It seems to me that would solve Rand's suggested invasion of one state by another problem.
Post #390,693 by rcareaga 6/12/14 9:48:18 AM Reply	Why not? Because... ...because some of those fuckwits would use 'em, that's why. See the entry for "Gomorrah, Sodom and." Oklahoma would probably consider it a duty to take out San Francisco, that cesspool of degenerates and Democrats—but I repeat myself—with cleansing fire, and I don't doubt that the after-action report would be studded with scriptural apologia. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers. cordially,
Post #390,699 by mmoffitt 6/12/14 11:01:23 AM Reply	Since about 1983, ... my best friend has been saying, "Come on, comet!"
Post #390,692 by mmoffitt 6/12/14 9:39:11 AM Reply	But size and geographic proximity do. The money and power in this country are concentrated around the DC area (New York, Mass, Connecticut, but especially Manhattan). K Street in Washington is home to their cronies. Manhattanites know fsck all about life in rural America, and care even less. Since those monied interests drive everything the federal government does, the people not living in those vaunted halls of money and power have no representation to speak of in their federal government. I do not like anything about Indiana state politics but I must confess those politics are more in line with the majority of Hoosier values. Perhaps it is not size alone, but size and geographic proximity still seem to impose limits on how successful this government has been (and is) with regard to accurately responding to the wants, needs and values of its people.
Post #390,705 by gcareaga 6/12/14 12:33:17 PM Reply	The drowning northeast I have wondered for some time whether the future diversion of resources from the hinterlands to the swampy northeast corridor for the purpose of shoring it up against rising sea levels might become the proximate cause of national fission. As New Orleans and Houston and Miami and Sacramento drown, and taxes are levied to shore up Norfolk and DC and Manhattan and the Hamptons, there will come a tipping point. Unlikely, I admit. I don't see the status quo pertaining for another century.
Post #390,724 by Ashton 6/12/14 5:27:50 PM Reply	The triage following the first serious water intrusions.. cannot fail to catalyze all forces (already wanting to reorganize Everything) but demanding right NOW! Kid! Measured, erudite colloquy ... couldn't possibly survive the pent-up, festering discontent writ large, after whatever Ludicrous-grade storm. Maybe the Web would go dark, early-on? I wish not to Go There; we can't debate even while not-underwater.
Post #390,704 by rcareaga 6/12/14 12:22:41 PM 6/12/14 12:24:55 PM Reply	"Kampuchea...was briefly ruled by genocidal psychopaths" cough! Edited by rcareaga June 12, 2014, 12:24:55 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #390,721 by Ashton 6/12/14 5:04:31 PM Reply	Foul!! Before displaying such a visage, the decent person walks 20 paces ahead, wavng a black flag and SHOUTING: Horrific apparition! Horrific apparition!
Post #390,723 by rcareaga 6/12/14 5:15:47 PM Reply	in a more perfect word... a decent person holds the visage aloft bearing the legend "Hanged at The Hague for crimes against humanity" —dontcha think? cordially,
Post #390,737 by Ashton 6/12/14 8:03:50 PM Reply	(I truly Should... live so long.)
Post #390,741 by folkert 6/12/14 11:31:33 PM Reply	Much more apropos (and Fixed It For You) a decent person holds the visage aloft bearing the legend "Quartered Live at The Hague for crimes against humanity!" --me doth think? -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #390,728 by a6l6e6x 6/12/14 6:26:21 PM Reply	Where is my barf bucket? Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #390,732 by boxley 6/12/14 6:52:43 PM Reply	here ya go bucket :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 59 years. meep
Post #390,718 by malraux 6/12/14 4:07:02 PM Reply	Related: http://io9.com/12-futuristic-forms-of-government-that-could-one-day-ru-1589833046 Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #390,738 by Ashton 6/12/14 8:17:57 PM Reply	Food for thought, but as an early responder notes, Excellent list, George! But let's be realistic here—we can't even get a realistic 3rd party option on the damn Presidential ballot, much less anything even remotely approximating a "government of the wise".... ..ameliorated by, It's stories like this and the Fermi Paradox that make me love you io9. Thanks, intelligent however unlikely approachable from this deep in the mineshaft of Wealth-adoration via perpetual circus-diversions.

Welcome to IWETHEY!