• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Based on international law the states would maintain their current borders, that means the urban areas would come along for the ride (IF under an actual referendum the majority was to vote in favor of separation vs the non democratic exercise that is US elections)

    The movement would probably see the creation of a new Union instead of just having a bunch of small new countries, so it would be rich enough to equip itself and create an army (and those voting in favor would probably jump on the occasion to defend their new country).

    Separation doesn’t happen overnight, you go and fetch support from other countries so you’re not left without any allies or international recognition if the vote is in favor (France was ready to recognize Quebec if any of the two referendums had been in favor of independence).

    You didn’t create a “best case scenario”, you just created a scenario that fits your opinion on the subject.

    Disclaimer: Am not from the USA, would gladly see it getting split in multiple countries just like I would gladly see Canada split in multiple countries as I think in both cases it would stop some parts of the country from slowing down progress in other parts. Ex.: If Mississippi and its citizens want to live in a third world country so much then so be it, let the rest of the US move forward.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sorry, but wrong on many points. If the conservative states were ever going to leave the Union it would have to be a quick transition as a longer process ensures that it won’t happen.

      One: The US as a whole is far more homogeneous than European democracies. It’s not like in Europe where you can drive a few hours and find a whole different language and culture. Those asking for a separation are a extreme minority even within their states. Even with them being in power, the moment they actually move towards separation they literally will be murdered in a few days.

      Two: during the slow negotiation for separation, red states would be responsible for their debts. States like Mississippi and Kentucky would have to back out of the separation because they’d become Haiti (economically) once the separation was complete.

      Three: even if they peacefully negotiated with blue states, violence would break out in urban areas because red states wouldn’t be leaving to create their own American style for of democracy. It would be a Christan Nationalist oligarchy. They want this separation to reinstate slavery, women’s suffrage, and genicide of all LGBTQ+ individuals. This one is inevitable regardless how the separation goes. But a slow separation just gives those urban areas time to prepare for war.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.

        You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?

        Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just looking at GDP/capita you can see that there are many red States that are above many European countries. The most popular example obviously is Texas at a secessionist movement has existed there for a very very long time… They have access to the ocean, a border with Mexico, resources… If they left it would probably lead to a movement where other states would want to join them to create the “United Republics of America” (to keep with the Republican theme)…

            • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just don’t have an extreme weather event or have any of their people with healthcare, who do you think pays to pick up the pieces? GDP/capita is not the final answer.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                If you go by that logic then the USA in general can’t work as a country when compared with most other first world nations because all bad events always ends up being worse there than elsewhere. Guess the US should just reintegrate the British Empire then 🤷

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Extreme weather no matter where in the USA is a shit show because the various levels of government are fighting each other.

                    Healthcare in the USA in general is a shit show compared to all other first world countries and even some developing countries.

                    If that’s good enough to argue that Texas couldn’t make it as a country then the same argument can be applied to the USA in general, can’t it?

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Texas is going purple, though. The many, many people there that live there and are Democrats, are they going to be cool with turning it into a totally shithole country?

            • ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.

              You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework

                Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    In Texas v. White’s ruling: There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

                    Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.