Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Would You Vote For Independence For Your State?
Yesterday, Peter asked how we all would vote on independence for Scotland, but I have a question for you: if you could be certain it wouldn’t cause a war, would you vote for independence for your state?
Now, I realize that the question is very different from Peter’s — Scotland having a very long and very different history from England, different people, different language, different culture — but I think it’s still relevant.
In my case, I live in New York State and I would vote an emphatic No. The nut of the case is that — if governments must exist — they should do so only to protect the rights of their citizens.
Despite meeting not far from my house, I don’t trust the New York State Legislature to protect my rights. As terrible as Uncle Sam is, I have a better shot of the Constitution of the United States protecting my rights than the State of New York.
I don’t know how to answer Peter’s question. While on general principle, I’d prefer smaller and smaller polities (preferably the smallest possible one, the individual) living in New York and not Scotland, I don’t have enough information. I don’t know which way to vote to have my rights better protected. The living under the control of White Hall sounds terrible, but Holyrood sounds worse, somehow. But like I said, I don’t have enough information.
So, again, how would you vote for independence for your state? If you live somewhere other than the US, please modify appropriately to province, or canton, or whatever, as per your local situation.
Image Credit: Shutterstock user spirit of america.
Published in General
2 years ago I asked the same question on this site and there were a good number who were offended by the thought of it. It seems more conceivable and acceptable now.
I will vote no for Louisiana because it has too small a population. But if Texas absorb Louisiana, then, yes.
Joan, how are the plans for the Republic of Ricochet coming along, btw?
I was not saying that blacks under Jim Crow were better off. I was saying that the United States as a whole was freer 50 years ago, even with the blight of Jim Crow, than it is today. The tyranny of today is nationwide and aimed at everybody regardless of color or race or region. To assume that someone would claim that blacks were better off under Jim Crow is “utter nonsense.”
If my brother lacks freedom, that is a lack of my own. I cannot say America was more free “Overall” while blacks were treated as second class citizens in the law.
I live in South Carolina. We already consider ourselves a separate country . . .
And have Peter Ustinov as the curator.
Don’t you see Robert? Once you give people the freedom to buy incandescent light bulbs, the next thing you know, they’ll bring back segregated lunch counters.
So, you are comparing what light bulbs one can buy to segregation in the south?
What is wrong with you people? How can you say we were more free when fellow citizens were denied basic rights by law?
The only people that have left the Union in the past have been people wanted to keep slaves, now here, y’all are saying we were better off 50 years ago, despite Jim Crow.
Clearly, what I think of as important freedom, and what you think of as important freedom is different:
I want it for everyone, you want it for yourselves alone.
I always hated that term “Upstate” as a catch-all to refer to the overwhelming majority of the state’s area. It’s indicative of the myopic, borderline sociopathic mindset that causes laws which make sense in a densely populated area (like banning of fireworks) to be applied to millions more for whom it doesn’t make sense.
NYC can keep their whole area. I always figured we’d just take everything within the Haudenoshaunee Confederacy, then hire them for our border guards.
I am arguing against the idea that because an America of a half century ago denied liberty to a minority of citizens that justifies denying liberties to all citizens today. The argument by the civil rights leaders of the Fifties and Sixties was that no American should be denied their liberty because of their ethnicity. The argument today is that no American should be denied their liberty, period.
The Civil Rights movement of the Sixties prevailed. (Thankfully)
The civil rights movement of the 21st century?
We’ll see.
Wow! I am against that argument too. Glad we are on the same page on that one!
Can you direct me to the person that made that argument, so I, too, can call them out?
It is a common trope on the left. The formulation breaks down as, “Without an all-powerful federal government, the schools would be immediately segregated again” or “State’s rights is just code for Jim Crow.”
It is a tiresome argument, but I am not aware of anyone on Ricochet making it.
The thought of an independent Utah can only summon to mind dystopian images of the morality police burning down your local coffee house. I would be not only reduced to dhimmitude but also useless on a Monday morning.
Hello Mama Toad! I have missed you. Can’t have Republic of Ricochet without the toads! The nature of a conservative group is highly individualistic. I don’t think most of us actually like living together. But we might have no choice if this country keeps voting Democrats. We will all be impoverished and unemployed but at least we could be busy arguing points of view.
I left the United States years ago, moved to the small country of Estonia, which has a stable succession of right-wing governments in power, strong on defense and pretty liberal in its law and government with no government debt to speak of and balanced budgets.
In some ways, I did vote for independence.
You realize you’re going to have to write a post on this subject now! Why and exactly when and how goes it?