[loeg]

Political reform sounds nice. I don't have too much to say about that; I mostly wanted to voice disagreement with your tangent:

De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries. This is to the advantage of all the states; I don't think any state seriously wants to secede from union and lose the benefits the federal government entails. No one is forcing the states to "hold the union together" against their will.

Other benefits of a federal government: shared currency and unified economic zone makes for more efficient interstate trade (see: Germany); shared federal agencies make for more efficient shared resources vs every state doing its own thing; etc.

And more specifically, re your statement "I am not sure why people in California have to live under the same rules as someone in Georgia:" they really don't. States write their own laws (in addition to federally-imposed laws for all states). Example of the day, some states have laws legalizing marriage between same-sex couples, other states have laws explicitly forbidding marriage between same-sex couples.

[chimeracoder]

> De-federalizing

Interesting that you should choose this word, since 'federalism' is associated with the Federalist Papers, which actually promote the kind of limited federal government over the states that GP is referring to. Hamilton, who authored the Federalist Papers, is also responsible for the kind of centralized economy that you describe, by creating a federal bank to assume the states' debt after the war. (The other half of this compromise was that the nation's capital was moved from New York City to what was (at the time) a mostly uninhabitable swamp in Maryland).

Even more ironically, the Federalist Papers were written primarily to convince the then-conservative New York (and a few other states) that they would be permitted their own 'states' rights' under the new constitution.

[loeg]

I do not disagree with anything you are saying. My language could have been more clear — I did not mean 'moving from the federal system (divided powers, central government) to one with less state powers,' but rather TruthElixirX's idea of moving from the federal system to separate states with no central government.

[TruthElixirX]

>De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries.

Yeah. I want that. The U.S. fucks around with other countries too much. Iran, all of South America, Asia, etc. It is not just clout, it is direct military and economic warfare to bend countries to the will of the federal government and Pentagon.

>No one is forcing the states to "hold the union together" against their will.

You are quite wrong, "They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."[1], also the Civil War moved the Union from a voluntary organization of the states to mandatory.

[1] https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/our-states-remain-...

[loeg]

> > De-federalizing destroys a lot of the political and economic clout that the US can hold over other, smaller countries.

> Yeah. I want that. The U.S. fucks around with other countries too much. Iran, all of South America, Asia, etc. It is not just clout, it is direct military and economic warfare to bend countries to the will of the federal government and Pentagon.

That's fine. And I, too, disapprove of many of the US' actions in South America, Iran, Asia, etc. But do keep in mind the economic and quality of life consequences (for US citizens) of losing that clout, and realize that not everyone agrees with you that trading clout for good will is worth it.

> You are quite wrong, "They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it."[1], also the Civil War moved the Union from a voluntary organization of the states to mandatory.

If you think I am wrong, I do not think you understand my position. I agree, the threat of federal coercion exists. But it is not actually being exercised. The elected leaders of Louisiana, etc, do not actually want Louisiana, etc, to secede.

That is why I think federal coercion is not (at present) an actual barrier to secession — I think the loss of federal benefits and subsequent trade/political disadvantage with the remainder of the US is a much greater factor. Louisiana and Georgia, etc's, politicians, business leaders, etc, realize this, which is why the only place such a statement can get any traction is on the internet where every uneducated asshole can voice their opinion. (And trolls who are fine with LA and GA being shitholes can jump in on it too.)