Red v Blue: Why Secession Makes Sense

Blue states are Blue because they contain huge Blue cities with millions of welfare voters. The Electoral Votes of these states will remain unobtainable by any politician recognizing the failure of the post-war welfare state, and trying to do something about it.

Solution?

The ONLY solution is secession by those states having voters who actually care about the future.

(And, no, secession is not illegal or unconstitutional, regardless of Lincoln. The two most populous States (NY, VA, along with NC and RI) at the time of ratification of the Constitution by which the sovereign States created the inferior Federal government included in their ratification documents that they could and would leave the compact whenever they wanted.)

Who cares about the viability of the economy ten or twenty or more years from now? Those having kids.

Who does NOT care? Those not having kids. What Blue states are experiencing negative fertility, i.e. fewer-than-replacement births? All but NV, NM and HI. Even California now has negative fertility.

It makes no sense whatsoever for Red State parents to continue to fund failed Blue State social programs. These programs steal from tomorrow’s generations to fund vote-buying today for those who refuse to work and who don’t CARE about tomorrow.

California will have on the ballot in November a proposal to split CA into six parts, and Californians will have to decide if this makes sense. Regardless of their decision, the federal government will refuse to acquiesce, so it’s moot. Why will the feds refuse this? Because Democrats will see a threat to a locked-in 55 Electoral Votes, and the establishment GOP would rather die than change with the times.

But this split doesn’t go far enough. It is not enough to create more States with the same number of representatives (fixed in law at 435). It is time to split the nation up. The flow of information and the new global realities require it.

Look around. Yugoslavia? Disintermediated by the citizens. Ukraine? Disintermediation – the East and Western halves do not want the same things, have the same goals or prefer the same economic models. Spain and Catalonia. Scotland and the UK. Quebec and Canada.

Look at the carnage in the Middle East and South Asia – Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon. Why is this happening? Because these States were aggregated by an outside power and no longer share enough to remain together – if they ever did. But with the increased flow of information, they now KNOW they lack shared values or ideals and that they can do something about it.

What do you think the Arab Spring was all about? Shared information and its impact on cultures and countries.

Rather than fight for borders that do not fit and never will, the solution has always been regional secession. Had we split Afghanistan into Kurd, Sunni, Shia, and enforced borders, that war would have wound down years ago. Same with Iraq.

The entire region has outlived its Western-mandated borders and wants out of them. When did violence end in Yugoslavia? When those with cultural affinity seceded.

None of these people share enough to remain a single nation. And with the advance of information, whether though the acceleration of social media, or the enormous growth in information outlets driven by the digital world, few of them want to.

Sound familiar?

The goals of Red and Blue States could not be more different. One believes in the future enough to populate it and wants a rising living standard. The other – doesn’t.

But it’s not just States. Look at California: We have 58 Counties. How many are Blue? Eight. 50 Counties are grumbling & crumbling beneath a governing philosophy that puts bait fish over jobs and agriculture – in the nation’s biggest agricultural State. Red and Blue California share… nothing.

The Blue social model – the Western post-war welfare state – is a relic of the Industrial Age. The Industrial Age is over. The Information Age is upon us and accelerating.

What are the primary traits of the Information Age?

Accelerating information. Accelerating the manipulation of data into information and then moving and making accessible that information faster and more broadly than ever before.

What does the faster access to information drive? Efficiency and productivity. Better and faster decision-making.

New, better, more detailed information drives another major trait, one you see in every internet purchase you make from a manufacturer rather than at the store, and in every news article or column you read online rather than via purchasing a paper or magazine: Disintermediation.

If we can get what we want from the source, we don’t need layers of Industrial Age bureaucracy between our government and ourselves, any more than we need brick-n-mortar stores to buy stuff.

Example: In the bad old days Congress came upon an idea: Block Grants. Absent information, we all went along with the absurd idea that it made sense to take money from a State simply to give back to that State after skimming 20-50% off the top to pay the skimmers.

But now that we know – through increased and faster access to information – that what is going on is that our hard-earned money is being laundered through a massive federal bureaucracy full of entitled federal union workers paying huge dues (paid by taxpayers of all parties) sent straight to the Democrat Party while busily making crazy videos, surfing porn or going to Vegas to party – we can, and should, disintermediate the layers of unneeded federal bureaucracy screwing us out of the results of our labor, our “pursuit of happiness.”

The same is happening at the State level.

We know this because of the increased flow of information that defines the Information Age. And we are angry about it. And logically so.

What is the logical way to combat this? Disintermediate States, or small groups of States, from the Union: Secession.

secession

The idea that the government will voluntarily rein itself in, regardless of party, was put to rest by the effective result of the GOP 2014 landslide victory: Any visitor would think that the Democrats won; NOTHING changed.

As the flow of information has grown and accelerated what has become one of the primary activities of government at all levels? What are the similarities among F&F, IRS v Tea Party, Benghazi, the Fed?

Hiding information.

This is the only thing at which our government now excels: Hiding information in the Information Age.

How do you stop layers and millions of bureaucrats from hiding information?

You fire them.

What is the best way to fire the millions that need firing, and at the same time to break apart the forced-together blocs of dissimilar economic and human goals?

We disintermediate.

Red States secede, perhaps into groups of States, and govern themselves according to their values and their view of the future, one in which their children will participate. And Red Counties in Blue States join them or secede into new States.

The two sides of the cultural and demographic divide go their separate ways.

The Left wants high taxation and the economic misery it brings. They should be allowed to have it.

The Right wants economic freedom and rising living standards. We need to demand it, and be willing to secede to get it. It is foolish to continue to subsume our desires to the demands for misery of the Left.

To start off, we no longer need the Federal government, and any centralized government resulting from a group of seceding States can and should be created along the lines of the original Constitution, absent race and gender discrimination, and absent the General Welfare clause. No new group of States requires a centralized government of anywhere near the size of ours, or one representing us so ineffectively because of our size.

If we insist on representative government, which is required by the Constitution we need to take with us, and want actual – real –  representative government, then we must have one Representative for every 2,000-5,000 citizens; anything more than that becomes the home of Special Interests and the death of citizen government (you may have noticed). Groupings of States into new countries can be made with the needs of actual representation in mind.

How many people does one Representative “represent” now? About 700,000. Hello, Special Interests.

Apart from the sheer inability to have representative government for a nation of 320M people, a government – a nation, of our size in today’s globalized world is absurd.

With globalization, all the feds do is get in the way of productivity – ask Boeing and South Carolina. All they do is make everything so expensive that companies from Big Pharma to Burger King are leaving the country for lower tax zones… and, not coincidentally, smaller countries and governments.

What are those too-high taxes used for? To buy votes of those not paying income taxes.

People need to grasp that welfare does not reduce poverty; if it did we’d have eliminated it by now. All it does is buy votes.

What are anti-competitive labor regulations used for? Increased patronage and DNC dues from your tax dollars.

What else does the federal government do?

  • Protect our borders? Nope.
  • Keep our money valuable? Nope.
  • Ensure a competitive regulatory environment with our global competitors? Nope.
  • Ensure the inexpensive and efficient flow of locally-sourced energy? Nope.
  • Ensure a level playing field under the Rule of Law? Nope.
  • Ensure high-quality education in our advancing and competitive world? Nope.
  • Meddle outside their Constitutional/Legal constraints? Yep.
  • Govern at their whim? Yep.
  • Ignore laws legally passed & signed? Yep.
  • Get us into wars we don’t need, and then not fight to win? Yep.
  • Create layer upon layer of armed security forces that don’t secure us and raise all economic costs? Yep.

In a post-Industrial, Information Age world, size is a cost, not a benefit.

And the size of our federal government is an enormous cost we no longer need to bear, as is the size of the nation itself.

In an Industrial Age, with Industrial Age (or Stone Age – Islamist) enemies and frequent Industrial Age warfare, size mattered. It no longer does. If we are attacked, or if we choose to attack others, we have two choices: Industrial Age warfare, essentially using Information Age citizens, modern, educated people to attack on an equal bullet-by-bullet field of battle illiterate, pre-Industrial savages – which is both immoral and childishly absurd – or to recognize that if we must do battle, better to do it totally, and destroy the enemy – which likely will be required only once or twice.

Pop Quiz: Who was a better economic, military and political ally 25 years after the end of hostilities? Japan in 1965 or Vietnam in 2000?

Want to reduce the incidence of warfare, or eliminate it entirely? Go nuclear and watch it crumble away.

Once the enemy has been annihilated, we all can get back to productive work, which warfare never is and never will be.

We don’t need a massive Defense bureaucracy to nuke enemies. We need a few planes, a few subs and some missiles. We have those – and they are stationed, mostly, in Red States already. If Blue voters don’t want to defend themselves that ought to be their choice.

From a warfare standpoint, the last possible rationale for a huge government, we can continue spending the enormous sums required to maintain an Industrial Age defense posture (for us and everyone else – we are paying for the defense of the entire West, and have been since the middle of WW2), or not.

What would “or not” entail?

It would entail exactly how America managed NOT to get in a war from 1953-1962. In January, 1954, Ike’s Sec State JF Dulles presented Ike’s defense posture going-forward at the Council on Foreign Relations in NY City. He said that America was not going to fund large conventional forces to defend ourselves or our allies; if we or they were attacked, we’d “respond massively.” Everyone knew what this meant.

Guess what? No wars. When Ike exited he gave us excellent advice that all presidents since have ignored: Don’t become imprisoned by the Military Industrial complex.

Do we need a large federal government to build (which are aren’t doing anyway), maintain (ditto), deploy or deliver the weaponry that will convince others not to attack us?

Nope.

Scratch Defense as a rationale for a huge government.

And the Right’s infatuation with “Don’t be isolationist” is absurd: It’s the responsibility of OUR sons and daughters to go to war to protect Afghans? Kurds? Egyptians? Germans? Swedes? Japanese? Or for OUR taxpayers to fund it?

Nonsense. The nations we defend are, for the most part, modern industrial democracies that are wealthy enough to pay their own way. Their problem is that they spend 99% of their budgets on welfare and 1% on defense, knowing we – American taxpayers – will foolishly take-up the slack.

Pulling our forces back and lowering our defense expenditures will force others to pay their own way. Why is that a bad thing? And if they decide not to, or to remove weapons they have (that’d be Ukraine), well, those are their choices, and natural selection works on nations, too. And it is not our job to prevent the fair and educated choices of other taxpayers.

And if they are not modern industrial democracies? Still not our problem. We spent lives and billions defending Kuwait. As soon as we left they began again executing people for apostasy. We sacrificed for THAT? Ask any mom who lost a kid there if that was a good trade – losing a modern American to rebuild a stone-age despotism?

And, if we must become involved to prevent savage massacres such as those by ISIS? See: Eisenhower, “massive retaliation,” above. Other nations and regions can make that choice, too: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Europe. Those idiotically rejecting isolationism are rejecting national sovereignty of other nations, are unable to think differently, are unable to comprehend the modern world, and demand that we keep arming for and fighting Industrial Age wars… forever.

So a large national government no longer is needed.

Next we can look at what information still is being provided by this – reduced – government overhead, and if those services can better be delivered via the more productive and efficient private sector.

With the information now available to us, we know or can know if we want to, what services can be moved to more productive sectors of the economy. Once we know, and once we mature and make decisions on productivity, on providing for the maximum pursuit of happiness of our citizens, rather than making those decisions based on patronage – the way they are today, we can do the opposite of what we have proved does not work: We can make it illegal for GOVERNMENT to do what the Private Sector can do rather than the idiocy of today: Making illegal for the Private Sector to do whatever the government decides IT wants to do..

Want to see huge job creation, faster, more efficient decision-making and rising standards of living? Move everything that can be done by the Private Sector TO the Private Sector and watch the economy take off. Will this happen in our current government? Nope. Too much patronage and vote-buying from those not working at all.

And why will those involved in patronage not be interested in increasing our standard of living?

Same reason they don’t care if welfare ever boosts anyone lifestyles: The poor vote for Democrats and Democrat fertility is negative; they do not care about the future or the standard of living of those in that future.

If we get rid of these millions of government bureaucrats, if we split into several parts, each small enough for self-government in the Information Age, what will we get?

Fairer, less-costly, faster-moving, slimmer government, and a whole lot more jobs, better education for those that want it, more liberty and freedom…

… and a far, far better future for our children.

It’s time for Red Staters to recognize the FREE, PROSPEROUS future that Blue Staters never will, and secede into free states.

We have nothing to lose but our chains.

 

About Alex Scipio

About Alex Scipio: Alex moved out of the People's Republic of California to the Free State of Arizona, finally tiring of the lack of the Bill of Rights, the overgrown idiocracy, and the catering to non-Americans & welfare recipients. He still wonders how America got from Truman, Eisenhower, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the Liberal and Conservative extremes so badly managing America today. And, yes, islam DOES need to be annihilated. And doing what he can to get folks away from the extremes of political life.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Red v Blue: Why Secession Makes Sense

  1. Pingback: Obama’s Gathering Storm | In This Dimension

  2. Pingback: Sowing the Seeds of Failure | In This Dimension

  3. Pingback: In This Dimension » Blog Archive » How the GOP Ought to Respond to Obama’s 2015 SOTU

  4. Pingback: In This Dimension » Blog Archive » America’s Second Revolution – by a Canadian pundit

  5. dan says:

    I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts —- but that’s all the more reason why secession is such a good idea.

    300 million under one roof really is too many, and almost any way we split would be an improvement. There would be more local control, and different areas could try out different solutions.

    Anyhow, the important thing to do is keep talking up the idea. When enough people realize that this is useful to them personally, it will happen. (I doubt it will be as sudden as the dissolution of the Soviet Union — but we’ll see.)

  6. Steve Leonard says:

    I agree with everything you write, but it cannot happen peacefully. It might be that red states will refuse to obey federal laws or regulations, then what? If the attempt to secede is made the only question is how violent the reaction will be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *