Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Nov 2016, 8:21 am

AspieUtah wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Another effect of statelessness could be, without competition for population, most would cluster around large urban area with vast expanses of scarcely populated tracts of land where animals could live and would remain largely undeveloped.

agenda 21

they want to drive everybody into cities while the rich own all the land

if they ever touched any of this I would advocate immediate secession

Welcome to most western states.


I am hoping soon that we'll get another referendum here to to declare sovereignty over our state's natural resources, we had one in 2012 before the issue really touched off. I think now it would have a chance of passing, we had quite a few elected officials that rallied with Cliven Bundy during their showdown with the feds and the guy they killed up in Oregon Lavoy Fincum was an Arizonan too. The feds control so much land out west it is ridiculous, they control more than half. In Arizona I think it's is 80%+.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Nov 2016, 8:52 am

Why not consider intense conditioning has led to utter devotion to fierce divisionism in the state-driven mindset? It's an artificial construct. We are all Americans. Look at South America. Would you rather live on a continent with lots of little states, virtually no cohesion, with millions of impoverished humans? Americans have lifted millions out of poverty through the middle class which was made possible by this sense we are all united as Americans. You don't see similar on continents containing several smaller states without a centralized factor.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Nov 2016, 8:58 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Why not consider intense conditioning has led to utter devotion to fierce divisionism in the state-driven mindset? It's an artificial construct. We are all Americans. Look at South America. Would you rather live on a continent with lots of little states, virtually no cohesion, with millions of impoverished humans? Americans have lifted millions out of poverty through the middle class which was made possible by this sense we are all united as Americans. You don't see similar on continents containing several smaller states without a centralized factor.


You seem to not have any concept of history. Never in the history of this land has there exist a unitary centralized state, that is exactly what our founders designed our country not to be. You thinking you'd be better represented by a one-size-fits-all government makes little sense, you'd have less representation then. People in Oklahoma would be effectively disenfranchised, it would be tyranny.



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

15 Nov 2016, 12:50 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
How easy is succeeding from a state but remaining part of the union?

Apparently, not TOO difficult, as "the Carolana Colony" became North Carolina and South Carolina, because leaders couldn't agree on things. "The Dakota Territory" became North Dakota and South Dakota to, arguably, give the House a Republican majority. Last-but-not-least, West Virginia split from Virginia, cuz it wanted to be a Unionist state, as opposed to being part of the Confederacy.





_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

15 Nov 2016, 12:57 pm

Campin_Cat wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
How easy is succeeding from a state but remaining part of the union?

Apparently, not TOO difficult, as "the Carolana Colony" became North Carolina and South Carolina, because leaders couldn't agree on things. "The Dakota Territory" became North Dakota and South Dakota to, arguably, give the House a Republican majority. Last-but-not-least, West Virginia split from Virginia, cuz it wanted to be a Unionist state, as opposed to being part of the Confederacy.



article 4, section 3, clause 1 in US Constitution

" New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

I think there is an exception for Texas which was pre-approved before it joined the union to divide up into as many as 5 states but obviously that has never been tested.