First ..... before participating in this thread ..... you're expected to have watched this: http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006

No seriously ... if you haven't watched it ... bugger off. It is to make sure everybody in this thread has a basic background and historical context through which to discuss this deeper than the typically "LOL RACIST" reflex from certain circles.




A few of the areas I want to delve into:

1) What has made Brazil and the United States so uniquely different from the rest of the world? Is whatever made them unique still applicable?

2) If the United States isn't immune and will head down the road of secession ..... what would that look that? Would Canada merge into whatever parts the United States splits into? The original colonies were suppose to go into present day Canada ... but they spoke French and were Catholic so we kept them out. What are the dividing lines? I suspect it would be entire existing state borders for political expediency. It is far easier to reshuffle states than it is to pull parts of a state out with a new border out of thin air like we did with the Carolinas and West Virginia ... both of which are far more deeply entrenched borders now than they were then. How do you split up the military? How do you split up the debt, or would both sides just default? How do you split up the nuclear arsenal? I suspect we will eventually get examples on some of that from Europe. The writing is on the wall for secession in Italy, Spain, Scotland, and maybe even Germany.

3) At what point do you hit diminishing marginal returns with secession? Some things only are really feasible at scale, like an extensible globally capable military with nuclear assets. I don't think an argument can be made that international military efforts are more successful than large national ones. Just look at NATO's assets that aren't really just loaned from a country. About the best international military effort I can think of is the Joint Strike Fighter ... which still can't compete with several planes in the US fleet. Non-military international work though as showed surprising promise. ESA and the ISS in particular.

4) Is secession really just a pathway for, ironically, bigger governance (see: EU)?

im pretty sure the canadians didn't want us not the other way around

I found the point about Mexico basically being four separate ideologies interesting. I never give much thought about Mexico any other way, than as a whole. By the trends he was showing. You could easily see that most of the southwest could become a different country.

(10-12-2014 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  First ..... before participating in this thread ..... you're expected to have watched this: http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006

No seriously ... if you haven't watched it ... bugger off. It is to make sure everybody in this thread has a basic background and historical context through which to discuss this deeper than the typically "LOL RACIST" reflex from certain circles.

Really? You want me to watch a 30-minute video and then answer a series of questions when you won't reply to posts that don't require you to watch 30 minutes of anything, but just requesting a dialog to responses, and you don't have time for that, but want people to watch this then answer your questions?

No thanks.

I don't see how it could happen. The south tried to form its own country once before and that didn't work out so well. But to speculate. I guess I could see a new version of the old south and the Republic of California.

(10-12-2014 08:12 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-12-2014 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  First ..... before participating in this thread ..... you're expected to have watched this: http://poptech.org/popcasts/juan_enriquez__poptech_2006

No seriously ... if you haven't watched it ... bugger off. It is to make sure everybody in this thread has a basic background and historical context through which to discuss this deeper than the typically "LOL RACIST" reflex from certain circles.

Really? You want me to watch a 30-minute video and then answer a series of questions when you won't reply to posts that don't require you to watch 30 minutes of anything, but just requesting a dialog to responses, and you don't have time for that, but want people to watch this then answer your questions?

No thanks.

Most people have zero historical context on secession. Their sum total of their public school secession knowledge is "Civil War means secession is now impossible. Can't ever happen again. Lincoln is the best President ever and his tears cure cancer."

I saw the video and found it very interesting. Thanks.

(10-12-2014 06:54 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  A few of the areas I want to delve into:

1) What has made Brazil and the United States so uniquely different from the rest of the world? Is whatever made them unique still applicable?

Land open to settlement. To me that's the answer of the top of my head. Is it still applicable? For the USA no I don't think so. Environmental issues aside, Brazil still has huge portions of the Amazon rainforest to settle into. Although it could also back fire and start up a whole new set of countries, although that's just a guess since I know next to nothing about Brazil.



2) If the United States isn't immune and will head down the road of secession ..... what would that look that? Would Canada merge into whatever parts the United States splits into? The original colonies were suppose to go into present day Canada ... but they spoke French and were Catholic so we kept them out. What are the dividing lines? I suspect it would be entire existing state borders for political expediency. It is far easier to reshuffle states than it is to pull parts of a state out with a new border out of thin air like we did with the Carolinas and West Virginia ... both of which are far more deeply entrenched borders now than they were then. How do you split up the military? How do you split up the debt, or would both sides just default? How do you split up the nuclear arsenal? I suspect we will eventually get examples on some of that from Europe. The writing is on the wall for secession in Italy, Spain, Scotland, and maybe even Germany.

I think you could write a book trying to answer those questions. With that said I think there are a few easy splits like New England, The South and California and a few other western states. I don't think Canada wants to do a damned thing with us. They have a good thing going, would want to keep the status quo as much as possible. Military won't be split but rather claimed. Whatever military base, weapons, etc. are within the newly established boundaries would become property of that new country. I personally think that the national debt and subsequent currency crisis that it will cause will be the catalyst for secession. As such I expect a world-wide-financial-reset when these new countries form.

3) At what point do you hit diminishing marginal returns with secession? Some things only are really feasible at scale, like an extensible globally capable military with nuclear assets. I don't think an argument can be made that international military efforts are more successful than large national ones. Just look at NATO's assets that aren't really just loaned from a country. About the best international military effort I can think of is the Joint Strike Fighter ... which still can't compete with several planes in the US fleet. Non-military international work though as showed surprising promise. ESA and the ISS in particular.

Projecting global power is going to be the least of the problems by any country in the former USA. Honestly I think that, diplomacy will go back to Pre-WWII standards. With far less intervention than what we currently see.

4) Is secession really just a pathway for, ironically, bigger governance (see: EU)?

Not in the USA's case. I think people long for the time when you could take a dump in your own house without breaking some law. As such the new countries would have a much smaller governments. Also I expect that, at least initially, these countries would be poorer than the current USA as whole. Welfare, food stamps would be a thing of the past in this new future.

I have watched the video @ three times including a few days ago.
Jotted down some notes, but didn't post them.
Juan Enriquez makes some points, but nothing much different than others.

Nations and nation states have always been a temporary thing.
Normally they seemed to have fallen from a wave of religion or
some bold leader. More likely now would be economic or religion.

What….are we forecasting the New World Order?

What will this New World Order be built upon:
You would think that it would at least have some commonality.

A common religion.
A common language.
A common region.
A common political agenda.
A common race.
A common enemy.
A common goal.
A common economy.


The sum is only as strong as it’s parts. When the parts have the ability to interfere decisively in the actions of the sum, it can make it weaker.

By the way, the Maps of War he mentions:
http://www.mapsofwar.com/

Rewatching the podcast and I got to the part were he mentions that 70% of all children in southern California are Hispanic. It got me wondering about the six state initiative that was going on awhile back. I don't see America breaking up and forming new countries. But I could see the creation of new states inside of America.

I would like to add this. http://www.khou.com/story/news/nation-no.../17705687/ This is what I believe will happen in the future. As populations continue to grow, voters will want to be more represented. This will give way to more smaller and manageable states.

(10-23-2014 06:47 AM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I would like to add this. http://www.khou.com/story/news/nation-no.../17705687/ This is what I believe will happen in the future. As populations continue to grow, voters will want to be more represented. This will give way to more smaller and manageable states.

They redistrict the House after every census so I don't see how more states would be an advantage.

What you are seeing is more emphasis on state rights and initiatives on the local level that run counter to federal policy. A smaller federal government with more services left up to the state to provide and tax for.

Your going to see high growth states with low taxes and low growth states with high taxes. That has already happened but will continue to get more extreme. The low growth states may have higher taxes but will have less real estate speculation and cheaper to live in.

US is still in a phase where some states are still developing. The Northeast, California and Midwest have hit their peaks and are exporting to growing areas. It will boomerang back around once new areas become to pricey.

For 200+ years, it was taken for granted the U.S. would always be a "melting pot" with one indivisible culture. But now we have multiculturalism and many people on the left advocate thinking of the U.S. as a "salad bowl" with a variety of cultures that remain separate and intact.

Regardless of whatever other factors are in play, this move toward a salad bowl concept can't work in favor of keeping the U.S. together.

Nothing lasts forever. We are not an exception to that rule.

We're headed for change, I just don't know what that is.

We'd be all good as we are right now if we could collectively change 1 thing about our culture: the notion that the ideals of our group should be everyone's ideals. Elections are no longer held to keep taxes low or run the government, they are held to push our agenda on everyone else (which is only OK when it regards civil rights, IMO). It's selfish and it will push us into something really bad before we even think about splitting.

(10-25-2014 12:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're headed for change, I just don't know what that is.

We'd be all good as we are right now if we could collectively change 1 thing about our culture: the notion that the ideals of our group should be everyone's ideals. Elections are no longer held to keep taxes low or run the government, they are held to push our agenda on everyone else (which is only OK when it regards civil rights, IMO). It's selfish and it will push us into something really bad before we even think about splitting.

People no longer vote in the best interest of the country. They vote in their own best interest, which comes down to, "Which political party will give me the most government goodies?".

(10-15-2014 06:37 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I have watched the video @ three times including a few days ago.
Jotted down some notes, but didn't post them.
Juan Enriquez makes some points, but nothing much different than others.

Nations and nation states have always been a temporary thing.
Normally they seemed to have fallen from a wave of religion or
some bold leader. More likely now would be economic or religion.

What….are we forecasting the New World Order?

What will this New World Order be built upon:
You would think that it would at least have some commonality.

A common religion.
A common language.
A common region.
A common political agenda.
A common race.
A common enemy.
A common goal.
A common economy.


The sum is only as strong as it’s parts. When the parts have the ability to interfere decisively in the actions of the sum, it can make it weaker.

By the way, the Maps of War he mentions:
http://www.mapsofwar.com/

there is only one entity that can achieve this.....and it is not a biological one....

somebody is finally getting it....everything else that leads up to that point is only feeding the trees....

....and gts....no way in any world will I read or even ponder the premise of your linky....

I 'expect' nothing from anyone....therefore to "expect" is weak in itself and naive...in totality, it's meaningless

(10-25-2014 12:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're headed for change, I just don't know what that is.

We'd be all good as we are right now if we could collectively change 1 thing about our culture: the notion that the ideals of our group should be everyone's ideals. Elections are no longer held to keep taxes low or run the government, they are held to push our agenda on everyone else (which is only OK when it regards civil rights, IMO). It's selfish and it will push us into something really bad before we even think about splitting.

Based upon historical precedent it is pretty clear what that change will be. It has been happening since our government was founded. Slow and steady centralization of power that leads to self destruction. I see nothing on the horizon to suggest anyone on the Hill is going to stop it or that the comfortable slaves are going to revolt and overthrown the masters. It is going to be ugly. I hope I am dead before it happens.

(10-26-2014 05:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-25-2014 12:13 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We're headed for change, I just don't know what that is.

We'd be all good as we are right now if we could collectively change 1 thing about our culture: the notion that the ideals of our group should be everyone's ideals. Elections are no longer held to keep taxes low or run the government, they are held to push our agenda on everyone else (which is only OK when it regards civil rights, IMO). It's selfish and it will push us into something really bad before we even think about splitting.

Based upon historical precedent it is pretty clear what that change will be. It has been happening since our government was founded. Slow and steady centralization of power that leads to self destruction. I see nothing on the horizon to suggest anyone on the Hill is going to stop it or that the comfortable slaves are going to revolt and overthrown the masters. It is going to be ugly. I hope I am dead before it happens.

absolutely.....I always have liked the majority of your posts....

....very well rounded and common sense in approach....

there is really is no out to the point this has progressed to......