A State of Jefferson?

[House of Judah]

You want to force your views on everyone else, too.

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.

And how can you, as a libertarian, possibly defend this position? How can you say that the woman doesn't have the bodily sovereignty to say "No, I do not consent to lending my body and my health to benefit another when it may negatively impact me"? It's no different than insisting a healthy person allow a sick person to filter their toxic blood through the healthy persons kidneys.

[San Lumen]

You want to force your views on everyone else, too.

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.

Lets not theadjack and turn this into an abortion debate. Explain to me why you disagree with Reynolds V Sims and why you think a rural county in Oregon or California should have more votes representation than San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland or Los Angeles? Representation is based on population not land area. Should the other counties in Washington be able to override the votes of the Puget Sound region in votes for Senate, Governor and President? Should we do the same for every other state? rural votes count more? How is that democratic or fair?

[Free Missouri]

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.

Lets not theadjack and turn this into an abortion debate. Explain to me why you disagree with Reynolds V Sims and why you think a rural county in Oregon or California should have more votes representation than San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland or Los Angeles? Representation is based on population not land area. Should the other counties in Washington be able to override the votes of the Puget Sound region in votes for Senate, Governor and President? Should we do the same for every other state? rural votes count more? How is that democratic or fair?

I think they should be allowed to separate. But If they don't, I would support giving them the grievance of having ONE House of their state assembly be run based on county.

[Free Missouri]

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.

And how can you, as a libertarian, possibly defend this position? How can you say that the woman doesn't have the bodily sovereignty to say "No, I do not consent to lending my body and my health to benefit another when it may negatively impact me"? It's no different than insisting a healthy person allow a sick person to filter their toxic blood through the healthy persons kidneys.

because the woman, you jackass, is the mother of said child/fetus, and therefore has a DUTY, at least until such a time that she can legally shirk that duty (Birth/Adoption), to provide for said child/fetus past the point where it can no longer be morally killed. It is difference than insisting a random healthy person allow a sick person to filter their toxic blood, what it's no different to is forcing a father/mother to give up blood to the child they are responsible for in a situation where if they don't, the child most likely dies.

and even as a Libertarian you have to certainly see the argument against such gruesome practices as Intact D&X

[Fronsland]

California should stay in one piece.

[Free Missouri]

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

Well for starters, those are the agreed upon rules that we have established. Let's not forget that when you come down to it, there really isn't such a thing as a 'right'. The 'rights' we enjoy can be taken away by a constitutional amendment (a difficult proposition these days to be sure, but still possible), and, to quote the late great George Carlin,[quote=George Carlin]Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges.

The 'rights' that we have are just privileges that, at some point, a supermajority of our population agreed should be more greatly protected than a 50%+1 majority would offer. The "right to be left alone" that you claim is certainly not one of them. Why should you have to abide by an assault weapons ban? Because the overwhelming majority of people are put at risk from easy access to assault weapons. Why should you have to rely on solar and wind instead of nuclear? Hey, I agree with using nuclear power but I recognize that we need an actual plan for the disposal of spent fuel, a planned maintenance system that allows for a reactor plant to be shutdown for periodic upkeep, repairs, and upgrades without plunging an area into darkness. In the meantime, the public at large is scared of nuclear power and it's not without good reason. That trepidation comes from a long history of dishonesty from the industry and the very plain fact that when something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor, the outcome is (or can be) much worse than a failure at a solar or wind farm. And as for that water, power, etc.? California tried that experiment. It resulted in brownouts that cost lives across the state, including rural areas, all thanks to the "energy brokerage" industry that emerged under the leadership of Enron.[/quote]

to Answer this first:

Rights are rights, rights exist because you are a person. Anyone who is a person, as defined as a Human Being capable of individual thought, from the point of viability to Death, has certain rights. You can have those rights violated, the constitution does not "Grant" rights, it only protects what are already there. (I can already tell you have a hobbesian approach to things). This view of rights as mere privileges we've simply decided to protect better is not only false, but dangerous. It is the type of destructiveness that has lead to the unconstitutional surveillance state, the extrajudicial killing of American Citizens abroad, as well as countless violations of human rights in the last two centuries.

Beyond that, Municipal power systems are simply inefficient government owned corporations which, in the experience of the people I know, are far worse at dealing with the problems of individual citizens if applied past the level of a small town, and heavily prone. Secondly, municipally controlled water? state-controlled water? Yeah, ask the Citizens of Flint, Michigan about how well that works out. In my area the county offers water, and it is generally better only because the water district here is actually controlled separate from the county as part of a "special district" thus giving us urban people direct control over our water utilities compared to the municipal model. However Urban-sponsored laws which have (thankfully) failed in the Missouri house have threatened our special districts due to inefficiencies in OTHER Special districts run in, you guessed it, urban areas. Meanwhile, our electrical system is maintained entirely by corporations. The one my family obtains power from is a COOP, that is, for you uninformed urbanites and "intellectuals," a corporation in which the "members" (Read: Customers) own the corporation, and thus have the power to elect the board of directors and vote on rate changes and major policy changes. However, due to the idiocy of many urbanites in our state and the predatory practices of Municipally-run power corporations and power corporations in areas where the city governments have all but guaranteed a monopoly, we still have to go through the long, drawn-out process of putting, through a long-winded impossible-to-appease state commission, our democratically agreed upon by us, the customers, rate changes.

[San Lumen]

Lets not theadjack and turn this into an abortion debate. Explain to me why you disagree with Reynolds V Sims and why you think a rural county in Oregon or California should have more votes representation than San Francisco, Seattle, or Portland or Los Angeles? Representation is based on population not land area. Should the other counties in Washington be able to override the votes of the Puget Sound region in votes for Senate, Governor and President? Should we do the same for every other state? rural votes count more? How is that democratic or fair?

I think they should be allowed to separate. But If they don't, I would support giving them the grievance of having ONE House of their state assembly be run based on county.

No they should not be able to separate and the state legislature would be highly unlikely to approve it. You didn't answer my post. Having it based on county wouldn't be fair representation.

[Free Missouri]

All in all I say this: The people in the state of Jefferson have the right to self-determination, one which I think we, as AMERICANS, for fucks sake, should not only respect, but hold dear. If they view that the Government of California no longer holds the consent of theirselves to be governed, they have the RIGHT to "dissolve the political bands which connect them to another" In this case, removing their status as counties within one state and forming a new state.

And there again, you're defining America as YOU want to and declaring the MY definition is ipso facto wrong. You obviously look at America and see (or want to see) rugged-individualism, a nation of islands that can stand alone. Me? I see the nation that came together time and again to overcome the challenges that face us. Modoc County didn't defeat the Nazis in 1945. Siskiyou County didn't develop the polio vaccine. Americans did. Working together and placing the needs of their countrymen and their fellow men above there own. That's America to me.

I'm sorry but that's not America.

America is a country where free individualism has lead to cooperation, not where forced collectivism helped. May I remind you that it was, in fact, every separate county that pulled themselves out of the Depression of 20-21, while it was America run by an ivory-tower urbanite that, due to mass government intervention, suffered through the Great Depression of 1932-1943? It was free individuals coming together of their own will, not forced to support laws unfriendly to them, that put together the space program?

Furthermore, may I remind you that it was individual farmers, politicians, businessmen that exercised their god-given right to self-determination to break off from a government that they felt no longer sought their interest but only it's own? We as Americans should respect and hold dear the right of self-determination held by the future people of the State of Jefferson in their wish to remove themselves from a government that doesn't seek their interest but only the interest of the west coast cities and seek out their own place among our country.

It's not a matter of what I "believe" America is, it is a matter of what America simply is. We are a country that was created by secessionists, traitors, people who, had they lost, would've been looked upon by history as we look upon the confederates. These people in the state of Jefferson are seeking so much less than secession from a country, for offenses that could be construed as similar to those committed by King George except by the tyranny of the majority rather than of the one.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

-snip-

As a lifelong Northern Californian, the conservative population tends to get trampled by SF and LA pretty consistently. There are large swaths of the Central Valley also conservative though, so I don't think Jefferson would help this underrepresentation.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

-snip-

As a lifelong Northern Californian, the conservative population tends to get trampled by SF and LA pretty consistently. There are large swaths of the Central Valley also conservative though, so I don't think Jefferson would help this underrepresentation.

How large is this population, and how dispersed is it? If they want to not get trampled, getting large and moderately dispersed would reduce the likelihood without doing the politically impossible.

[Free Missouri]

I'd prefer a state called Roosevelt.

disgusting, both roosevelts.

One jumped at the chance to join into a war and overall only did one thing right (National Parks)

The other took what could've been a short, easily-survived stock market crash and turned it into the existential threat that was the Great Depression.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I'd prefer a state called Roosevelt.

disgusting, both roosevelts.

One jumped at the chance to join into a war and overall only did one thing right (National Parks)

The other took what could've been a short, easily-survived stock market crash and turned it into the existential threat that was the Great Depression.

1932 was the crisis year, and that was the year he was elected...the depression was already quite bad and he didn't make it any worse. Hoover tried to motivate corporations but they were all spooked and running in the woods pissing themselves like deer, so the fascists and commies prepped to take over.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

As a lifelong Northern Californian, the conservative population tends to get trampled by SF and LA pretty consistently. There are large swaths of the Central Valley also conservative though, so I don't think Jefferson would help this underrepresentation.

How large is this population, and how dispersed is it? If they want to not get trampled, getting large and moderately dispersed would reduce the likelihood without doing the politically impossible.

This map does a pretty good job of discerning it. They are very dispersed, but over the less populated eastern part of the state. There are 5.2 million Republicans and 7.9 million Democrats, which is a large margin, but California is a large state. There are as many Republicans in California as registered voters in Virginia, and every smaller state. The demographic is rather large, but like Dems in Texas gets squelched by the majority in many elections.

Seems more like the way of the world, though.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

How large is this population, and how dispersed is it? If they want to not get trampled, getting large and moderately dispersed would reduce the likelihood without doing the politically impossible.

This map does a pretty good job of discerning it. They are very dispersed, but over the less populated eastern part of the state. There are 5.2 million Republicans and 7.9 million Democrats, which is a large margin, but California is a large state. There are as many Republicans in California as registered voters in Virginia, and every smaller state. The demographic is rather large, but like Dems in Texas gets squelched by the majority in many elections.

Seems more like the way of the world, though.

I can only see four county-pieces that are most vibrant red, corresponding to Orange County, urbanized Riverside, Kern/Bakersfield and Redding. Rest of the red areas are, indeed, rural and that margin looks to me like it's around 60-40% (of their combined total, which might not be the whole number of people who have been identified by political movement). Combined with district drawing matters of natural gerrymanders and voting patterns and the nonproportionality of FPTP, that could easily be the reason for Cali's reputation as solid blue.
PR could remedy that but it wold be seen as a threat to two-party domination and other sentimentals.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

This map does a pretty good job of discerning it. They are very dispersed, but over the less populated eastern part of the state. There are 5.2 million Republicans and 7.9 million Democrats, which is a large margin, but California is a large state. There are as many Republicans in California as registered voters in Virginia, and every smaller state. The demographic is rather large, but like Dems in Texas gets squelched by the majority in many elections.

Seems more like the way of the world, though.

I can only see four county-pieces that are most vibrant red, corresponding to Orange County, urbanized Riverside, Kern/Bakersfield and Redding. Rest of the red areas are, indeed, rural and that margin looks to me like it's around 60-40% (of their combined total, which might not be the whole number of people who have been identified by political movement). Combined with district drawing matters of natural gerrymanders and voting patterns and the nonproportionality of FPTP, that could easily be the reason for Cali's reputation as solid blue.
PR could remedy that but it wold be seen as a threat to two-party domination and other sentimentals.

Exactly, although it wouldn't be unheard-of for California to go red. They've voted for Republican presidents from 1952-1988 (barring the 1964 fiasco). I live in a moderately conservative area during the school year and very liberal during the summer, so there's lots of "why don't my candidates ever get elected" and the other "Californians are so progressive" (without looking at 1/3 of the state).

[San Lumen]

I can only see four county-pieces that are most vibrant red, corresponding to Orange County, urbanized Riverside, Kern/Bakersfield and Redding. Rest of the red areas are, indeed, rural and that margin looks to me like it's around 60-40% (of their combined total, which might not be the whole number of people who have been identified by political movement). Combined with district drawing matters of natural gerrymanders and voting patterns and the nonproportionality of FPTP, that could easily be the reason for Cali's reputation as solid blue.
PR could remedy that but it wold be seen as a threat to two-party domination and other sentimentals.

Exactly, although it wouldn't be unheard-of for California to go red. They've voted for Republican presidents from 1952-1988 (barring the 1964 fiasco). I live in a moderately conservative area during the school year and very liberal during the summer, so there's lots of "why don't my candidates ever get elected" and the other "Californians are so progressive" (without looking at 1/3 of the state).

Its very unlikely California will go red anytime soon.

[Sack Jackpot Winners]

Exactly, although it wouldn't be unheard-of for California to go red. They've voted for Republican presidents from 1952-1988 (barring the 1964 fiasco). I live in a moderately conservative area during the school year and very liberal during the summer, so there's lots of "why don't my candidates ever get elected" and the other "Californians are so progressive" (without looking at 1/3 of the state).

Its very unlikely California will go red anytime soon.

Yeah, but the gap isn't as wide as people like to think. Kind of like those "non-existent" Texas democrats.

[The Rebel Alliances]

Much better

The 100 states thing wasn't serious, I'm much in agreement with you that Guam and PR should become states (not really sure about DC personally) I just think that if people are feeling unrepresented and whatnot that they should be free to go their own way.

The problem is that then you don't have unified country.

Part of having a country and society with the rule of law is that you have to make compromises and you don't always get your way.

That and the last time separatist sentiment was seriously entertained in the United States, it ended up killing about 600,000-700,000 people, and that was in a much smaller and less powerful nation with 19th. Century weapons.

Secessionist thinking is not something I want to see encouraged anywhere, but least of all in the US.

The Jefferson idea is hardly equal to the Secessions preceding the American Civil War. What, is South California afraid that if Nor Cal separates they will fire on Sou Cal forts?

Honestly, went through a few pages and have not seen any convincing arguments against. As long as it is done through an organized process.

[Liberaxia]

You want to force your views on everyone else, too.

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.

Libertarians wish to force their views on other people just like everyone else. We must abide by your property law, your contract law, and put up with whatever social arrangements result from your desired rules. In this respect, everyone—anarcho-communists, Stalinists, environmentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, progressives, directivists, eugenicists, technocrats, monarchists, Enlightenment liberals (which I happen to be), paleoconservatives, Nazis—is the exact same.

There are four possible reasons for why you won't admit this:

• You are too timid to do so.
• You are too dim to realize it (this probably isn't you, since most libertarians do tend to be intelligent, if irrational).
• It would make nonsense of of your worldview and the image you hold of yourself politically.
• You have so thoroughly ingrained libertarianism in your psyche that it is impossible for you to conceive of anything else.

[Theodolia]

The problem is that then you don't have unified country.

Part of having a country and society with the rule of law is that you have to make compromises and you don't always get your way.

That and the last time separatist sentiment was seriously entertained in the United States, it ended up killing about 600,000-700,000 people, and that was in a much smaller and less powerful nation with 19th. Century weapons.

Secessionist thinking is not something I want to see encouraged anywhere, but least of all in the US.

The Jefferson idea is hardly equal to the Secessions preceding the American Civil War. What, is South California afraid that if Nor Cal separates they will fire on Sou Cal forts?

Honestly, went through a few pages and have not seen any convincing arguments against. As long as it is done through an organized process.

There's really isn't an organized process. The formal requirements for statehood are whatever the hell congress deems them to be at that exact moment in time.

[The Rebel Alliances]

The Jefferson idea is hardly equal to the Secessions preceding the American Civil War. What, is South California afraid that if Nor Cal separates they will fire on Sou Cal forts?

Honestly, went through a few pages and have not seen any convincing arguments against. As long as it is done through an organized process.

There's really isn't an organized process. The formal requirements for statehood are whatever the hell congress deems them to be at that exact moment in time.

I am certain with enough manpower behind it one could be worked out. The Constitution as I know it does not address secession very well. But I am sure something could be worked out.

[Liberaxia]

Rights are rights, rights exist because you are a person.

So far, this is not a good argument. Largely tautological.

Anyone who is a person, as defined as a Human Being capable of individual thought, from the point of viability to Death, has certain rights.

More Paine-like assertions.

You can have those rights violated, the constitution does not "Grant" rights, it only protects what are already there.

"Grant" and "protect" serve to mean the same thing, which is the implementation in law of some entitlement.

(I can already tell you have a hobbesian approach to things).

I knew you were intelligent.

This view of rights as mere privileges we've simply decided to protect better is not only false, but dangerous.

The only that matters is whether or not it is true. Whether or not it is "dangerous" has no bearing on truth-value of the proposition.

the unconstitutional surveillance state

The cause of this is that people were afraid and sacrificed their freedom to stay safe. Nothing to do with viewing rights as privileges.

the extrajudicial killing of American Citizens abroad

This is because Americans hold to realpolitik in foreign relations and have an affinity for unilateral action.

as well as countless violations of human rights in the last two centuries.

This is really false. All those horrible thing you're probably thinking of happened for different reasons:

• Blacks were seen as inferior and therefore did not have "rights" at all.
• Nazis needed a scapegoat or genuinely hated the Jews.
• Americans just wanted to expand their land when they corralled the Indians.

None of those things have to do with viewing "rights" as "privileges".

[San Lumen]

Rights are rights, rights exist because you are a person.

So far, this is not a good argument. Largely tautological.

Anyone who is a person, as defined as a Human Being capable of individual thought, from the point of viability to Death, has certain rights.

More Paine-like assertions.

You can have those rights violated, the constitution does not "Grant" rights, it only protects what are already there.

"Grant" and "protect" serve to mean the same thing, which is the implementation in law of some entitlement.

(I can already tell you have a hobbesian approach to things).

I knew you were intelligent.

This view of rights as mere privileges we've simply decided to protect better is not only false, but dangerous.

The only that matters is whether or not it is true. Whether or not it is "dangerous" has no bearing on truth-value of the proposition.

the unconstitutional surveillance state

The cause of this is that people were afraid and sacrificed their freedom to stay safe. Nothing to do with viewing rights as privileges.

the extrajudicial killing of American Citizens abroad

This is because Americans hold to realpolitik in foreign relations and have an affinity for unilateral action.

as well as countless violations of human rights in the last two centuries.

This is really false. All those horrible thing you're probably thinking of happened for different reasons:

• Blacks were seen as inferior and therefore did not have "rights" at all.
• Nazis needed a scapegoat or genuinely hated the Jews.
• Americans just wanted to expand their land when they corralled the Indians.

None of those things have to do with viewing "rights" as "privileges".

Let's not thread jack and turn this into an abortion debate. Plus I'd like through answer to my above response to you Free Missouri.