• @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    -11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Many states are in a much better position than many existing countries. Just because you refuse to consider it doesn’t make it non feasible.

    You get to have your go at a thought experiment but others you disagree with don’t get to do the same?

    Edit: Have yet to see someone explain why, for example, Iceland can be an independent country but it’s impossible to imagine Texas or the Carolinas being independent countries except for “People who don’t agree would revolt and the US would bomb the place!” Is it so hard to imagine a future where both sides agree that the union experiment didn’t work and it’s better to just split the country in chunks than continue with the status quo? Even for a thought experiment? Use that wonderful thing we call “imagination”.

      • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        -81 year ago

        Just looking at GDP/capita you can see that there are many red States that are above many European countries. The most popular example obviously is Texas at a secessionist movement has existed there for a very very long time… They have access to the ocean, a border with Mexico, resources… If they left it would probably lead to a movement where other states would want to join them to create the “United Republics of America” (to keep with the Republican theme)…

          • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            -61 year ago

            If you go by that logic then the USA in general can’t work as a country when compared with most other first world nations because all bad events always ends up being worse there than elsewhere. Guess the US should just reintegrate the British Empire then 🤷

              • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                -61 year ago

                Extreme weather no matter where in the USA is a shit show because the various levels of government are fighting each other.

                Healthcare in the USA in general is a shit show compared to all other first world countries and even some developing countries.

                If that’s good enough to argue that Texas couldn’t make it as a country then the same argument can be applied to the USA in general, can’t it?

        • @CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          Texas is going purple, though. The many, many people there that live there and are Democrats, are they going to be cool with turning it into a totally shithole country?

        • @ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Texas’ GDP is what it is because it’s part of the United States.

          You’re so simple you think Texas could secede from the United States and the companies and industries that promote that GDP would stay there? If clueless was a person it’s be you.

          • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            -4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ain’t that the whole point of common law? There’s no legal framework -> go to court -> set the precedent -> there’s your framework

            Separatists have to support each others, my nation’s separatist movement is older than anyone alive today. If some US states feel like they would be better off outside the union then good on them, the super nation experiment has run its course, it’s the same as empires of ages past and I don’t see anyone here defending the British Empire and being against Canada’s Confederation or saying that Haiti should still be a French colony… Weird how hard it is to apply equal standards to everyone 🤷

              • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                -41 year ago

                In Texas v. White’s ruling: There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

                Scalia’s opinion on the subject was shared as an answer to a letter so it has no legal precedence.