"Logisitical Challenges" doesn't even begin to cover how difficult doing what you suggest is, never mind the long term economic, political, and military consequences.
What economic consequence. We can still trade and do business, just like we do business with foreign countries. Military consequences? That was my point. We don't have the same military consequences that we had during the civil war.
It would take some paitence but from a liberal perspective, wouldn't their superior ideology and morality make for a better country pretty quickly if they were all liberal?
Short answer is "no". Also, and pay attention to this bit, the Democrats aren't liberal. They haven't been liberals since Johnson left office. These days the DNC is GOP Lite.
Ok so they are not liberal. But I still don't see how we wouldn't be better off as separate countries or at least working towards a separate society in which people are presented with a better option in choosing a government that meets their philosophical ideals. In a way we've already worked towards that with allowing states rights. If you're in Oregon, expect to be under liberal rule and prepare for it accordingly. If you live in Texas, then live under Texas law. I think we could afford to allow more states rights than we already have, and if a state law is so oppressive and unjust, how bad can it really be if you're not willing to pick up and move somewhere else, but instead need the federal government to enforce a universal law that does not even begin to work for our highly factionalized, multiracial, multicultural society. What we have is bunch of cultures trying to enforce their own culture upon others. Why not allow cultures to naturally segregate and avoid this unnecessay conflict?
But we have to have borders. We need borders because we have to make cultures responsible for the norms they impose. If we allow one culture to import its poverty to another, we haven't held them accountable for culture that created the poverty. Consequently the situation perpetuates itself because the defective norms that produce the defective results are never changed. Change sometimes requires violence. People have to get in a bad enough situation that they are willing to do what it takes to change. They have to do that for themselves. You can't do it for them.
ajax18 wrote: They could do it their way, and we could do it our way. In a way most of us are already living in the right areas to make the division with minimal mandatory relocation.
Ok, so you do want to have mandatory relocation... What about dividing up military, industrial, and infrastructure assets, most of which cannot be moved easilly (if they can be moved at all)?
Just do it like you would a divorce. Yes, it's painful at first but sometimes it's for the better in the long run for both people.
Ok, I'll bite. Name some specific cases of states rights being over run by the federal government in a clearly unconstitutional manner in the last 143 years. And no, telling the South they couldn't own other human beings doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count? Just because it's wrong to own human beings doesn't mean the civil war wasn't an unprecedented victory of federalism over states rights. Do you not believe that United States has gotten more federalist the longer it has existed? I didn't see that as a controversial statement. I thought both Democrats and Republicans understood that.
I don't really see why it has to be forced relocation. Wouldn't democrats rather work and do business with other democrats and Republicans likewise. Isn't this something we would both want to move towards over time. Societies function better when people agree upon the rules more and share a common vision for the future. We don't share a common vision for the future. We have a conflict of interest because our society is simply to diverse and factionalized. The drawbacks to diversity are much greater than any perceived benefit for every culture. The only advantage I see to federalism is military strength and I find population and geography less important to military strength in modern society than in 1863 or 1776 when these questions were raised. We need a chance to choose to create an alternative culture. It need not be divided by race, but it must be divided by political philosophy and what each of us believes is the best law. If you have a culture that overpopulates and causes a desperate situation. Hold them accountable to that. If you have a culture that puts out too much CO2, than the rest of the world is going to have to hold them accountable to that. And if you can't agree, than you're just going to have to fight it out or die.
If you don't believe in torture, I can respect that, but only if you're the one driving the HUM-V and lead the rest of your life as paraplegic because we chose not to force Azid to cough up who was a soldier/terrorist hiding undercover as a civilian.
Say you thought that it wouldn't be worth it to interfere with German aggression and that it would create a bad situation. Ok, that's fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to come and make a huge sacrifice later when they wanted to stop it early. The founding fathers were very sensitive to the idea of states rights because they knew (much better than we know now) the value of making societies as small and individualistic as possible. People need to be free to choose and micromanage, and more importantly must be held accountable.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.