What are the odds of the US balkanizing in our lifetime?
And for the record, I'm taking RI, and making it feudal. Seriously, that fucking castle on Cranston Street? MINE MOTHERFUCKERS.
in an official capacity, I'd say pretty unlikely. However a weakening of central authority and increased autononomy on the local level seems pretty likely.
As a gambling man, I'd be willing to bet on it happening in the next 50 years if certain demographics continue to exist and proliferate as they are now.
I know Hawaii is gone within the next 10. If we gain PR in the time...I dunno, but outlook not-so-good, they're a bunch of deadbeats who don't want to pay taxes.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 03:27:39 AM
I know Hawaii is gone within the next 10. If we gain PR in the time...I dunno, but outlook not-so-good, they're a bunch of deadbeats who don't want to pay taxes.
:kingmeh:
I see it as likely, betting with Lysergic.
Quote from: Abraxas on December 01, 2010, 05:37:03 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 03:27:39 AM
I know Hawaii is gone within the next 10. If we gain PR in the time...I dunno, but outlook not-so-good, they're a bunch of deadbeats who don't want to pay taxes.
:kingmeh:
I was married to a Puerto Rican, his father was off-the-island Boricua. He told me that himself. Islanders complain that we don't give them enough support, but when the question comes up on statehood, they freak out on the idea of paying federal taxes (they do pay territorial.)
How do you figure Hawaii is gone in the next ten years? I imagine that they would be fairly reliant on outside imports and membership in the US is necessary for them at this point.
I don't see a fragmenting of the US, but a continuing debate of the idea. Most Americans adhere to the idea of being American and only talk secession and fragmenting when they are dissatisfied with the current administration or when exasperated with partisan politics.
What I predict is more talk about devolution with the action in further centralizing power in the federal government.
There is a HUGE secessionist movement on the islands, mostly with the native population. But on the bottomline, it's more about how much it costs them to be citizens (Not so much as taxes as importing from the mainland) and how little the people truly have in common with most Americans. Hawai'ians have more in common with the rest of the Pacific than the Walmart Nation, so they want out.
I don't see it happening. I could see it if, say, there were significant chunks of U.S. territory inhabited primarily by American Muslims. Maybe, Maybe, it would happen if areas with growing Hispanic populations also had fleeting white populations. But I dunno, as fucked up as this country is, I just don't see it getting to THAT point.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
There is a HUGE secessionist movement on the islands, mostly with the native population. But on the bottomline, it's more about how much it costs them to be citizens (Not so much as taxes as importing from the mainland) and how little the people truly have in common with most Americans. Hawai'ians have more in common with the rest of the Pacific than the Walmart Nation, so they want out.
True, I know about their secessionist movement, but I'm not convinced it's all that powerful or that Hawaiians are willing enough to removing themselves from the US. I get the sense that most modern secessionist movements are more of a half-hearted means of asserting regional identity and building political cred. I like the New England secessionist movement because I don't have a lot in common with most Americans. Most Americans don't have much in common with most Americans, but they're still ok with being American.
It might be interesting, however, to add a 3rd, middle layer of American government, creating regional dominions. Messy as hell, but an interesting thought experiment.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
There is a HUGE secessionist movement on the islands, mostly with the native population. But on the bottomline, it's more about how much it costs them to be citizens (Not so much as taxes as importing from the mainland) and how little the people truly have in common with most Americans. Hawai'ians have more in common with the rest of the Pacific than the Walmart Nation, so they want out.
True, I know about their secessionist movement, but I'm not convinced it's all that powerful or that Hawaiians are willing enough to removing themselves from the US. I get the sense that most modern secessionist movements are more of a half-hearted means of asserting regional identity and building political cred. I like the New England secessionist movement because I don't have a lot in common with most Americans. Most Americans don't have much in common with most Americans, but they're still ok with being American.
It might be interesting, however, to add a 3rd, middle layer of American government, creating regional dominions. Messy as hell, but an interesting thought experiment.
You mean...more like feudalism?!
King = President
Regionals = Dukes
Governors = Counts
Congressmen = Viscounts
Everyone else = Serfs
OMG, I've been inspired to start a Feudalism Party.
I don't see it being likely. A former FSB analyst predicted something similar not that long ago and got laughed at. A lot.
The trend in the USA for the past 60 odd years at least has been centralization of power. Balkanization would likely only happen in the case of severe economic collapse or cataclysmic destruction, either natural or man-made based on current trends.
Secessionist movements within US territory are typically weak, both politically and militarily. All major parties are invested in the territorial sovereignty of the United States as it now stands. No foreign powers with any cultural pull or major military expertise are agitating for secession or providing support to secessionists.
It would be more like a multilayered Federalism. Maybe devolve some national powers down to a dominion level (I am using the word dominion because of the phrasing Dominion of New England when we were still part of the Empire). Maybe have the national government look more confederated, but still with a strong executive branch. Or conversely where there was a place where states rights being called into question, have dominion level government mediate? I dunno, I'm just bouncing around ideas.
A Feudal Party would be a good mindfuck. We already have a political aristocracy, could use that as a basis for argument.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 02:03:57 PM
I don't see it being likely. A former FSB analyst predicted something similar not that long ago and got laughed at. A lot.
The trend in the USA for the past 60 odd years at least has been centralization of power. Balkanization would likely only happen in the case of severe economic collapse or cataclysmic destruction, either natural or man-made based on current trends.
Secessionist movements within US territory are typically weak, both politically and militarily. All major parties are invested in the territorial sovereignty of the United States as it now stands. No foreign powers with any cultural pull or major military expertise are agitating for secession or providing support to secessionists.
This more or less sums up my thoughts on the topic.
I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 02:14:39 PM
I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.
I think we all do, but I see a gradual slide into Empire more likely. Could be in 200 years we still have a President and call it a Republic, but it's a hereditary President for life with supreme executive power.
Well the seeds of decay have definitely been sown on an international level. The US is still a hegemon...but multipolarity is looking increasingly likely. The BRICs have been asserting themselves a lot of late, and regional players like Iran, Turkey, Germany/France and South Africa are showing increasing initiative.
The two-term limit will likely be abolished, and probably should be, from an American perspective. The increasing compexity of foreign affairs and decreasing resources/reluctant allies will make managing foreign affairs more time-consuming and more complex. A change of guard every 4-8 years will compound US strategic errors and make a coherent foreign policy more difficult, especially if the electorate continue to whiplash from one party to the other like they have in the past four years.
Abolition of the two-term limit will open the possibility of a President for life, however it will probably be more like the Soviet experience than a dynasty (a bunch of old white guys, increasingly frail and mentally constrained by ideology and illness from acting within their nation's best interests) - this would be especially easy if the US suffered a major strategic setback, such as visible and obvious defeat in war, or a swift and unexpected change in the balance of power, which can easily be provided by a revolution or election somewhere that goes the wrong way.
The US is nowhere near as bad as, even, say, the Weimar Republic yet, but there are some disturbing signs that, like Weimar-era Socialists, American small-l liberals are insufficiently devoted to the Republic they profess to admire, and so will let Continental-style revolutionary reactionaries destroy it.
Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 02:17:42 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 02:14:39 PM
I didn't think it was highly likely, but somewhere in the back of my brain I really want to see societal collapse and restructure, even though it takes decades if not centuries.
I think we all do, but I see a gradual slide into Empire more likely. Could be in 200 years we still have a President and call it a Republic, but it's a hereditary President for life with supreme executive power.
Mmm...How Roman.
Some European countries do work on this principal...Poland comes to mind, and, to a degree, France and Russia. The President handles foreign affairs and the military, while the Prime Minister is more responsible for domestic policy. Actually, something similar to this already exists in the US, when you consider the Vice-President is the tie-breaker of votes in Congress...you could modify that so the Vice-President is in "charge" of Congress and leave the foreign policy and military command to the President.
There are, of course, fairly permament national security types on the NSC and in the Pentagon anyway, and there are serious questions about how checked that power should be, both under the current system and the theoretical one presented above. However, I can definitely see my scenario in the previous post as a possible outcome, if not one I'd especially enjoy.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.
Adding to thought-
Conversely, we could have some sort of North American Confederacy which handles general foreign policy, much in the way that the EU is starting to do. Though the biggest obstacle to that would be American pride, and that goes for turning off Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and Central America.
Also, EU foreign policy making is naff. I would not follow their steps.
Hell, look at the nobodies selected for the posts of President and Foreign Envoy.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 02:47:53 PM
Some European countries do work on this principal...Poland comes to mind, and, to a degree, France and Russia. The President handles foreign affairs and the military, while the Prime Minister is more responsible for domestic policy. Actually, something similar to this already exists in the US, when you consider the Vice-President is the tie-breaker of votes in Congress...you could modify that so the Vice-President is in "charge" of Congress and leave the foreign policy and military command to the President.
There are, of course, fairly permament national security types on the NSC and in the Pentagon anyway, and there are serious questions about how checked that power should be, both under the current system and the theoretical one presented above. However, I can definitely see my scenario in the previous post as a possible outcome, if not one I'd especially enjoy.
Your scenario is sadly likely as any other.
Old frail teabaggers as Prez for life. You're right though, there is a lot of political apathy making it hard to sufficiently check them.
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2010, 02:52:50 PM
Also, EU foreign policy making is naff. I would not follow their steps.
Hell, look at the nobodies selected for the posts of President and Foreign Envoy.
Touche :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 02:48:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 02:43:06 PM
Maybe it would be good to have a separate head of state without term limits to manage foreign affairs while having the President's power more limited to domestic affairs? Maybe two (one from each major party, to ensure balance, with the President causing a lean in general policy)? We could call them the Prime Ambassadors.
Adding to thought-
Conversely, we could have some sort of North American Confederacy which handles general foreign policy, much in the way that the EU is starting to do. Though the biggest obstacle to that would be American pride, and that goes for turning off Americans, Canadians, Mexicans and Central America.
We do enough work with Canada and Mexico as it is, but the rest of "North America", not so much. The Caribbean and Central America will be harder to agree with.
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 12:30:42 PM
Quote from: Abraxas on December 01, 2010, 05:37:03 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 03:27:39 AM
I know Hawaii is gone within the next 10. If we gain PR in the time...I dunno, but outlook not-so-good, they're a bunch of deadbeats who don't want to pay taxes.
:kingmeh:
I was married to a Puerto Rican, his father was off-the-island Boricua. He told me that himself. Islanders complain that we don't give them enough support, but when the question comes up on statehood, they freak out on the idea of paying federal taxes (they do pay territorial.)
First of all, there hasn't been a statehood referendum in PR in a long time. Second of all, the territorial taxes aren't much different than paying federal income tax. The real issue for PR in regards to it being disadvantageous for them to be a state is that they would lose a FUCKTON of money in federal subsidies. There are HUGE tax breaks for companies wiling to set up shop in PR and those make it possible for alot of Puerto Ricans to earn a living wage when they otherwise wouldn't. Compare the median (NOT the mean) per-capita income in PR to those in the USVI and the CNMI. There's also the issue that most Puerto Ricans don't feel many cultural ties with America, but that's secondary to the fear of losing that federal money.
I see it as an inevitability, and it won't be Hawaii that goes first... it will be New Hampshire.
Quote from: Nigel on December 01, 2010, 11:09:20 PM
I see it as an inevitability, and it won't be Hawaii that goes first... it will be New Hampshire.
They are pretty uncharacteristic of other New Englanders. They also tend to siphon off our libertarians.
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2010, 03:42:09 AM
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
:lulz:
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2010, 03:42:09 AM
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
Not empty quoting.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 02, 2010, 03:52:10 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2010, 03:42:09 AM
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
:lulz:
I "officially" became a RI resident in April 2003. Rocks fell in May. :evil: Stupid topography...
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2010, 03:42:09 AM
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
What is this "too many guns" that you speak of?
ECH,
no such thing
Quote from: Abraxas on December 02, 2010, 04:31:28 AM
Quote from: Suu on December 02, 2010, 03:42:09 AM
Let them go. None of us like them anyway. They're just rich retirees from the Midwest with too many guns who don't want to pay taxes. Maybe if we're extra lucky, Quebec will absorb them, and we can REALLY hate the motherfuckers.
-Suu
Old Man in the Mountain was a warning shot.
What is this "too many guns" that you speak of?
ECH,
no such thing
It doesn't matter in Maine...I'd side with Downeasters in a bar before I would a Free-stater.
Shit, I'd want even MORE guns if I had to be stuck in RI or Mass.
And of COURSE you would, you're smart enough to pick the winning horse.
No Southern New England state would ally themselves with fucking New Hampshire. In fact, the Federal government once threatened both CT and RI with merging them with NH if they never settled the border dispute by the 1830s or some such bullshit.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 01, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
Quote from: Suu on December 01, 2010, 01:09:30 PM
There is a HUGE secessionist movement on the islands, mostly with the native population. But on the bottomline, it's more about how much it costs them to be citizens (Not so much as taxes as importing from the mainland) and how little the people truly have in common with most Americans. Hawai'ians have more in common with the rest of the Pacific than the Walmart Nation, so they want out.
True, I know about their secessionist movement, but I'm not convinced it's all that powerful or that Hawaiians are willing enough to removing themselves from the US. I get the sense that most modern secessionist movements are more of a half-hearted means of asserting regional identity and building political cred. I like the New England secessionist movement because I don't have a lot in common with most Americans. Most Americans don't have much in common with most Americans, but they're still ok with being American.
It might be interesting, however, to add a 3rd, middle layer of American government, creating regional dominions. Messy as hell, but an interesting thought experiment.
http://www.metro-region.org/
:magick:
With all this theorising going on, I have 2 things to say:
Black Swan
We just *can't* predict.
Uh, no.
Care to elaborate?
You're wrong and we can.
Secession and state-breakdown are actually very well studied phenomena with rigorous models of analysis which could easily be used for predictive purposes if most places where they would be of use did not routinely withold accurate data.
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
You're applying what he says to the wrong things.
Quote from: The Spagifex Maximus on December 02, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
You're applying what he says to the wrong things.
hmm.
*whips out copy of black swan*
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
Sounds more like the matter. Taleb didn't say "everything is unpredictable", and in fact, a "Black Swan" is used to refer to
an event which was unexpected
and has a high impact.
Are you really suggesting that if a nation was split between two major ethnic groups, and each of those ethnic groups were concentrated in certain areas, and that there was a well-funded secession group funded by members of that ethnic group living across the border in a neighbouring state, and they had both a political and paramilitary arm, and their military ability and willingness to fight was on a par with the national forces, that certain powerful nations were willing to recognize a new state and that a host of other factors were working in favour of secession, that you would...what? Just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it's just as likely there wont be a secession"?
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:37:04 PM
Quote from: The Spagifex Maximus on December 02, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
You're applying what he says to the wrong things.
hmm.
*whips out copy of black swan*
Taleb's theory applies to that which we cannot fully understand, and he say's as much. Secession is well understood. Therefore the black swan theory does not apply.
Quote from: Cain on December 02, 2010, 12:38:40 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
Sounds more like the matter. Taleb didn't say "everything is unpredictable", and in fact, a "Black Swan" is used to refer to an event which was unexpected and has a high impact.
Are you really suggesting that if a nation was split between two major ethnic groups, and each of those ethnic groups were concentrated in certain areas, and that there was a well-funded secession group funded by members of that ethnic group living across the border in a neighbouring state, and they had both a political and paramilitary arm, and their military ability and willingness to fight was on a par with the national forces, that certain powerful nations were willing to recognize a new state and that a host of other factors were working in favour of secession, that you would...what? Just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it's just as likely there wont be a secession"?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
But to be honest, *I'm* not even sure what I was trying to say.
I suppose, is this something that falls into "Mediocristan"? is what I really should be asking/thinking, right?
Quote from: The Spagifex Maximus on December 02, 2010, 12:39:24 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:37:04 PM
Quote from: The Spagifex Maximus on December 02, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
Quote from: Lysergic on December 02, 2010, 12:29:20 PM
So you're saying Nassim Nicholas Taleb is wrong, or that I have no idea what hes talking about?
You're applying what he says to the wrong things.
hmm.
*whips out copy of black swan*
Taleb's theory applies to that which we cannot fully understand, and he say's as much. Secession is well understood. Therefore the black swan theory does not apply.
Yeah, I suppose that's a fair point.
Asshole. :argh!: