referendum: Leave the United States of America

I would think that one of the reasons to leave the union would be to escape the debt. The federal madness of progressive monetary & spending policy is enough reason right there to distance from that institution. Any state that would risk the wrath of the union & try to secede, would not take a portion of the debt with them.. and for that reason alone, once a few states began to secede, the rest would follow in quick succession, as none of them wants to inherit the absurd madness of progressive debt.

 

Oh my.. he was 'promoting hate' was he? Now the correlation with Hitler? I think you forgot 'racist!!' in your propaganda stream.

Yes, 'America. Love it or Leave it.'.. the banner cry of the left, who wave flags & promote the constitution. Now you want to lecture people about nationalism, while progressive madness is destroying the foundations of American Freedom?

 

What do you need a referendum for?
Pack up and get out.
By staying where you are clearly unhappy and are, in your mind, the victim you are casting your vote to stay.

Do the brave thing for once and get out.

- - - Updated - - -

"Progressive madness"?
Care to show some evidence of that?

I know you cons are always playing the drama queen victim, but for once back your whining with something of substance.

 

Progressive debt?
Hummm, what about the trillions of conservative debt?

 

Drawing the border that way would ensure the failure of "the South" again.
Wouldn't take nearly as long this time and we (the North) wouldn't have to fire a shot.

 

I have started many threads that show the historical, progression of America's decline, & the correlation with progressive ideology. I have started & contributed to many threads about the dangers & consequences of this ideology, as an anti-American, anti-human ideology. I suspect you have avoided these threads, as this is not what you want to hear. But the facts are there, & the evidence is clear.. progressive ideology is a bane for humanity, & is driving America to ruin & destruction.

Its all the same. It is all progressive debt, regardless of what party hat they have on. Actions speak louder than words, in your ideology.

 

I can certainly understand both the disillusionment and the frustration but sometimes just understanding the problem gives us hope that overcomes the disillusionment and frustration. We can understand the problem by understanding the history that created the problem. In addressing the problem we must disassociate the terms "progressive liberal" and "social conservative" from political parties because the political parties change while the ideologies do not.

The founding of the United States is generally referred to as our era of "Classical Liberalism" and that was based upon the ideology of inherent in the founders such as Thomas Paine, arguably the "Father" of the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson the "Father of the Declaration of Independence, George Washington the "Father" of the United States, and James Madison the "Father" of the US Constitution. Those "Fathers" were intellectuals that drew on the wisdom of mankind going back to Socrates and were arguably most influenced by John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government published in 1690. They were all "progressive liberals" advocating the most sweeping changes to society and government in the history of mankind.

They were opposed by the "social conservatives" because the goal of the social conservative is to retain the existing social, economic, and political institutions. While the "social conservatives" did eventually consent to some changes based upon the compelling arguments of the "progressive liberals" which created the United States they still fought to retain many of the existing institution.

For example slavery was an existing institution that the "progressive liberals" could not support based upon their own arguments. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison were all slave owners (basically by inheritance) but all opposed the institution of slavery and the retention of slavery was based upon the fact that it was an existing institution that the "social conservatives" refused to end. These same founders advocated for the natural right of property but ownership of property wasn't based upon the natural right when the United States was created. Ownership of property was based upon "Title" that we inherited from the "Divine Right of Kings" that John Locke argued against. There were no fundamental changes to our laws of property when the United States was founded and today we still live under laws of property established by "title" as opposed to the natural right of property and it was the "social conservatives" that successfully fought to retain the "laws of property based upon title" because they had much to lose if we changed to laws based upon the "natural right of property" as argued for by John Locke that the "Fathers" of the United States agreed with.

There was always the conflict between the "progressive liberals" and the "social conservatives" and the founders pragmatically accepted that it would take time for "progressive liberalism" to overcome the resistance to change that the "social conservatives" represented. They knew it would be a slow process at best so they didn't give us the nation they envisioned but they did put us on the right course. Where I'm sure they would have been frustrated is when the era of "Classical Liberalism" was replaced by "Neo-Classical Liberalism" by the social conservatives during the 19th Century. Social Conservatives won that battle and it was a huge step backwards for the United States.

That conflict between "progressive liberalism" and "social conservatism" continues today and, for the "progressive liberal" it's generally been two steps forward and one step back and we're seeing that step backwards today because of the power of social conservatism in America. For example the gains made during the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960's are falling due to the anti-civil rights movement of the social conservatives today.

Of course many refer to the Democrats today as "progressive liberals" but they're really not. They're not true advocates for the natural rights of the person and they're certainly not "progressive" enough in their political agenda and policies. For example a "progressive liberal" would have never supported the post 1971 laws that prohibited same sex marriage because it was a fundamental violation of the natural rights of the person to form personal/financial partnerships based upon the mutual consent of adults. If they were really "progressive liberals" they would have always opposed the drug prohibition laws, laws restricting immigration to the United States, and the laws starting in the late 19th Century that revoked the rights of non-citizens to vote when 40 states and territories had laws protecting the right to vote for non-citizens.

In my "title" I've self-identified as a "progressive libertarian" because I've adopted the same political ideology of "libertarianism" that was advocated by the "progressive liberals" that founded our nation. I go far beyond what many "progressive liberals" of the Democratic Party represent because I can envision the nation that the founders hoped would someday exist but the battle between "progressive liberalism/libertarianism" and "social conservatism" continues and today we seem to be in an era where the social conservatives are winning in some of their efforts of retaining or restoring the historical social, economic, and political institutions that were always based upon White (WASP) Male Supremacy throughout the history of the United States. It's a huge step backwards from the nation that the progressive liberals that founded the United States envisioned for us.

But I retain hope because the negativism of social conservatism has never prevailed over the long term in America. The American people eventually get fed up with it and once again we move forward based upon the natural/inalienable rights of the people.

So while we're certainly in "one step backwards" era of American politics I'm confident that we will make "two steps forward" in the future assuming the social conservatives don't completely destroy the United States and the progressive liberal political ideology upon which the nation was founded first.

 

Excuse me.
Thomas Paine's pamphlet Common Sense - Progressive Liberalism.
The Declaration of Independence - Progressive Liberalism.
The US Constitution and it's Amendments - Progressive Liberalism.
The early era in the United States is referred to as "Classic Liberalism" by historians.
The ending of slavery in the United States - Progressive Liberalism.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's - Progressive Liberalism.
Marriage Equality - Progressive Liberalism
Religious Freedom - Progressive Liberalism.
Freedom of Speech - Progressive Liberalism
The Right of Self Defense - Progressive Liberalism
The Right of Property - Progressive Liberalism
The Right to Vote of the People - Progressive Liberalism

I can't think of anything positive in the history of the United States that wasn't based upon the Progressive Liberal ideology.

What I will state unequivocally is that "Democrat =/= Progressive Liberalism" and never has but the United States, all of the advancements in the history of United States, and what makes the United State superior to other nations are all based upon the "Progressive Liberal" ideology.

 

Actually I would like to try federalism again. I think we would have a lot fewer national disagreements over ridiculous stuff like abortion or gay marriage if they were handled at the state level.

 

Nope.

ISIS and Al Qaeda spring from a similar religious ideology and have similar goals (although they have differences on the particulars). However the PLO was a nationalist movement that was more or less secular; it's goals were not unlike other nationalist movements. There have always been terrorist groups but they have not always threatened us. The IRA and the Tamil Tigers were terrorist groups, but didn't threaten the US.

 

Too many think like that ... money solves all. IT DOESN'T We throw money at everything because its easy. How's it working so far?

 

That is merely definitional differences.. or revisionist history, depending on what you mean.

The ideology of America is based on Enlightenment values of Natural Law, Human Equality, & Self Determination. NONE of those things are held in high regard by progressive ideology, which has at its root elitism & state centered control. Your inclusion of the term, 'progressive' is a revisionist one, attempting to hijack the Enlightenment principles that were the basis for America. But nothing in progressivism relates to those principles.

Natural law? The right to life, property, & liberty? Progressivism wants redistribution, an energetic State, & micromanaging control.. not ANY of the principles of natural law.

Human equality? Progressivism preaches elitism, with an elite ruling class managing the huddled, inferior masses. Eugenics is the root of progressive ideology, not abolitionism. THAT came from the enlightenment/reformation values of human equality.

I cannot think of ONE positive from 'progressive' values. Most, if not all, of our current problems have at their root 'progressive' ideology.. they control the institutions, the propaganda stream, the revisionist history, the indoctrination, & almost all the information outlets. The narrative is theirs to control, & they do it with relish, redefining & revising history in real time.

 

That doesn't make sense. It would be extremely complicated for a state to secede, and why do you think a state should bail out of it's share of the debt? If California voted to leave, should they get away from the debt scot free even though their representatives helped cause the national debt? No way!

 

That is why a 'referendum' is meaningless. The final arbiter for any human differences is ALWAYS power. THAT is the final 'referendum'. If california can secede (as if it wants to!) they could, if they had the power to do it, & repel any counter measures from the union. Florida could secede as well.. they could dig a moat along the mainland border, & abandon the panhandle. They could mint their own currency, & exempt themselves from any federal debt. Who could say they couldn't? Unless the union army invaded, & took all their stuff, & forced everyone into submission, how can they be made to honor the debt the feds created?

 

Actually, you can still collect Social Security even as an expat living in another country, so people who are already collecting social security would still be able to collect their SS checks. Of course, if you're one day from retirement when independence occurs, you're screwed. Medicare, yes I agree, also screwed.

 

That's exactly how it would happen. There are military bases and units that would put down any rebellion.

 

I agree, in the current climate.. but i also can see an 'American Spring' or a 'USexit' consensus growing, even though it strikes at the heart of American Unity. But that is the result of the constant divisiveness from the progressive left.. they ASSUME our unity as a universal constant, when they are actively undermining the very foundation of that unity. Once everyone embraces the 'us vs them' mentality of the progressive left, there will be no reason to stay united, & the constant suspicion, attributing evil intent, & propaganda caricatures of ideological opposites will only fuel the fire for genocide.

It is just like their alliance with islam. They will destroy the left, given the chance, yet they naively assume & believe they will be spared, for some reason, by the islamic extremists who want a caliphate, not a utopian collectivist fantasy.

 

Excuse me but I'm not changing the definition of progressive.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/progressive

The founders of America unquestionably took interest in and made use of new political ideologies, most notably the writings of John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, and they were highly progressive in doing so.

Nor do I change the definition of liberal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

There's no question in anyone's mind that the founders of the United States were not opposed to new ideas that were not traditional, and in fact they adopted those new ideas such as those expressed by John Locke in the creation of the United States nor can anyone claim that the creation of the government of the United States wasn't expressly about creating a new form of government to bring about both social and political change because it attempted to do both.

Based upon the definitions of the words "progressive" and "liberal" there's no question in anyone's mind that the significant individuals such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison responsible for the American Revolution and the founding of America were highly progressive liberals.

Where we find the problem is that you apparently ignore the definitions and instead use the Democratic Party Ideology in place of the definitions to wrongfully condemn progressive liberalism that was the ideological foundation of the United States. That is a nefarious action because, as I've stated, the Democratic political ideology is not the same as the progressive political ideology (although they do share some commonality on some issues).

Not true of the progressive liberal ideology nor is it even exactly true of the Democratic political ideology which is supported to a large degree by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, that is recognized as one of the foremost essays on the natural right of property ever written. I suggest you read it because it's obvious to me that either you haven't read it or failed to understand it if you did.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

To summarize Locke the natural right of property is established by the labor of the person that is a "generalist" taking what they require directly from nature to provide for their (household's) support and comfort but Locke also includes some caveats.

A person cannot establish a natural right of property if "enough, and as good" as doesn't remain for all other people.

A person can only establish a right of property based upon what they use for their support and comfort and no person can own anything, such a vacant land, that they're not using because any property not being used reverts back to the ownership of the common (i.e. all people).

The natural right of property establishes "title" to the property while "title" alone doesn't establish ownership or a right of property.

A person that has more than what they (their household) requires for their support and comfort has violated the right of property of all other people and has no right to possess that property.

Like all natural rights the right of property is not transferrable. While the "title" can be transferred it becomes the responsibility of the person acquiring the title to establish their own right of property. Failure to establish a personal right of property would result in the loss of title to the property.

Locke also argued for "commerce" which is not based upon the natural right of property. Commerce is based upon specialization and trade while the natural right of property, as previously noted, is based upon the generalist that takes directly from nature what they require for their support and comfort. As Locke argues by specializing the individuals can produce more than they can as generalists so all of society benefits because there's more to go around for everyone and, in fact, an excess of wealth is actually created. Locke's argument is validated by the US economy where we produce about $16 trillion of "wealth" each year while economists establish that it only requires about $3-4 trillion for every person living in America to have the "basic support and comfort" they require.

Democrats don't actually advocate the "redistribution of wealth" and this is best summarized by a statement made by FDR.

Instead Democrats advocate the fair distribution of a small part of the wealth being created, that would equal about 1/4th of the wealth being created, to ensure that working American households have enough for their support and comfort. Democrats may not understand John Locke or his arguments but this is fundamentally why John Locke supported commerce created by specialization. In short, more so by accident than intent, Democrats are supporting the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke.

I have no idea where this delusional and erroneous opinion on progressive liberalism or even the current Democratic Party ideology originates.

There is only one group that can be identified as being "elitist" and that would be White (WASP) Males that have never statistically been discriminated against or oppressed in the United States. Blacks have been discriminated against and oppressed. Hispanics have been discriminated against and oppressed. Catholics have been discriminated against and oppressed. The Chinese have been discriminated and oppressed (and our first "immigration law" was expressly based upon racism to prevent Chinese immigration to the United States). Muslims have been discriminated against and oppressed. Women have been discriminated against and oppressed. I can't think of any demographic group except White (WASP) Males that hasn't been discriminated against in the history of the United States and the social, economic, and political institutions of the United States have always been controlled by White (WASP) Males from the day this nation was founded right up to today. Even when we elected a black president the White (WASP) Males of the Republican Party in Congress discriminated and oppressed him in his role as president. Explicit anti-black racial prejudice increased from 71% to 79% among Republicans between 2008 and 2012 when a black man was elected President of the United States.

It is, and has always been, the social conservatives that have supported the elitism of White (WASP) Male Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions that's always existed in the United States. The elitism of White (WASP) Male Supremacy has never been supported by progressive liberalism or by the Democratic Party once the social conservatives abandoned the Democratic Party and became Republicans during the 1980's.

I can accept the excuse of a person that claims they're incapable of thinking because it's certainly reflected by the opinion expressed.

 

Money concerns would limit any move to a 'USexit.' Most people, having paid into Medicare and Social Security their working lives, wouldn't want to give that up.

 

I like how you dive head-first into delusion and fantasy immediately after claiming to be against that sort of thing.

 

Dude, this is just a hypothetical. I've visited Gettysburg, so I know about the brutality. We're posting in a thread based on an impossible theory, and you want to slam me over my knowledge of history? Personally, I would let the country separate if it were up to me - but it's not.

And yes, countries can separate without violence. It happened in Czeckoslovakia.

 

To understand American history is to understand that American greatness is founded upon the back of "progressive ideology." Of course progressive ideology is a meaningless moniker adopted by modern democrats to conceal the fact that they are neo-liberal capitalists who have nothing in common with the historical progressive movement or the historical American left. The time in which American economic policy was dominated by the center left, was the most successful period of economic growth and equally distributed prosperity in American history. The golden age of American prosperity coincided with a period in which Democrats dominated congress, and the center left economic status quo was maintained by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Its only with the collapse of Bretton Woods and then the election of Ronald Reagan that we see American prosperity slowly start to decline. More and more wealth went to wealthy capitalists, because surprisingly pro-labor policies are actually good for labor... And pro-business policies are mostly just good for business and capitalists don't let much trickle down unless labor or government are forcing it to trickle down.

You then see Clintons famous move to the center and his adoption of the Republican economic platform. His support for "free trade" (which unsurprisingly had little to do with actual free trade), his gutting of welfare, his deregulation of the banking industry, etc. So what we are left with now is a husk of a party that tries to maintain the illusion of liberalism by coopting the LGBT movement (and stripping it of all its calls for social justice and making it just a movement to be allowed into the neoliberal dream), pretending they care where trans people go to the bathroom, and publicly pretending they care about privacy or civil rights in relation to the war on terror (while behind the scenes they are stepping up surveillance, ramping up the usage of drones, and prosecuting whistle blowers).

No, anyone who understands history understands that the American left doesn't exist as a force within mainstream American politics nor has it for a few decades now. Bernie Sanders gave some people some hope that this might change, but it was always a pipe dream. No what we have is a conservative party trying to maintain the neo-liberal status quo (Democrats) and a reactionary, nativistist, regressive, racist, sexist, monster of a party pushed to that point by the total lack of a mainstream left-wing/pro-labor party to offer anything resembling effective solutions as an alternative.

 

I think to assign a label to the American Founders is both unfair, and historically they wouldn't want it. George Washington opposed the political party construct, famously predicting the situation we find ourselves in today. And the parties of the 17th-19th centuries weren't what they are today. I mean, what would you call a "Democratic-Republican" party?(Thomas Jefferson). And then, I'll take some notes of the American Revolutionary War.

You had the Separatists(Americans) on one hand, and then you had the Yorkists(Loyalists) on the other. I would not ascribe "conservatism" to them, insofar as they tried to "preserve" anything, except their loyalty to the crown. To me, that's not maintaining a status quo. That's accepting it, but not "maintaining" it. The ones who tried to maintain it, were the British Empire.

I'd also like to state that the Whig Party, was THE last third party in the United States(Though an offshoot of Republicans), going back to the lack of National Identity. The Dems could nominate a Hillary, or even god forbid the Repubs could nominate a Donald Trump and it doesn't matter. Why? Who in this country is smart enough or political enough, to look into and vote for a third party?

If this country is under bondage, it's under its OWN bondage and it probably won't be resolved any time soon sadly.

And the Liberal's so called "progress"" is possibly the biggest yoke of oppression on this country. Like I said: Washington is holding these 50 States hostage, as they're forced to fund their own economies and necessities, while the government ignores them and at best, funds our military. We've seen Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch sue States they didn't like and extort money out of them. While this lawless oppression is going on, King George-style the Liberal declares themselves progressive?

We also see the failure of "social programs" such as Social Security, etc and now mandated insurance. Government taking from the people and telling them how to use their money and thus ensuring the poverty of millions. Reagan was right: The Liberals started this war on poverty, and its only matched by the war on drugs in its failure.

When we look back at failed policy, dating back to FDR's term we see nothing but failure from Liberals. "What then, of conservatives?"

Let's take the so-called "Southern Strategy" in perspective. At the time(1980), the electoral vote was in the South(and the Mid-west). The Liberal states(NY, PA, California) were not nearly as dominate as they are today. And when you look at the geographical size of the US, I would argue there's more conservatives than Liberals!

This is why I say it's disenfranchisement when today, Kansas has only 4 electoral votes. Who can HONESTLY call that political representation? My SINGLE vote even in Michigan, eclipses that of Kansas. Just as immediately as the general began, Liberals already looked to the electorate as a "sizeable advantage", before even a vote could be counted. Because they "count" the States.

That is NOT representation, and you know it if you believe in classical Liberalism. Back in 1980, the Republicans were wise to carry the most States with
the most electoral votes at the time.

The true treason came with the Democratic distortion of the Alwater tapes. A slight parsing of a conversation that lasted 30 minutes, destroyed the representation of the States and led to this unacceptable oligarchy. To this day, that treason sits with us as one of the main reasons for our plight. The great irony of this oligarchy is that though it opposes the individual States, as LilMike points out: It's not a true Federal Government.(IE: It doesn't treat the States equally..)

I am of course, a Third Positionist. It was always my goal to overthrow both Conservatives and Democrats. Trump is a mixed bag that did good and bad through his candidacy. The good is, is that modern conservatism(ie: The religious right) has been killed. No one would have nominated Ted Cruz and they know it. And the Neo-con also suffered immensely. The bad is, Trump's own incompetence will give reason for the majority party to close its ranks. I know I would have, if I were party leader.

So the next man up has to establish himself and fairly quickly, also as distinctly from Trump as possible. And once that is accomplished, I can't wait to argue with a Democrat in the general. It'd be long time to answer for several decades of treason, where the failure and sabotage was blamed on the right wing.

 

Yes, they can separate without violence, and hopefully that will be the case for us. The problem is that we're just too different to be friendly neighbors.

 

Why do you think states share in the national debt? That's the federal government's debt. States have their own budgets, and the federal government has its budget.