Anti-secessionists: come at me, bros!

[Mr Khan]

badgenome said:

Mr Khan said:

I did not say antebellum, either. Really, the conditions i'm thinking of are early 20th century, mostly because i've been reading "Fall of Giants" in large chunks lately; Jim Crow, laws hindering reproductive rights, further enshrinement of Christian traditions at the expense of others, criminalization of homosexual activity, a total ban on teaching evolution in public schools, could you honestly say some or all of these things are good, and that they would not happen if some states got their way?

Oh, so the South has progressed since the Civil War, it just hasn't progressed beyond the 1920s? Gotcha.

But yeah. I guess that, in a world where Mississippi votes down a personhood amendment, I am not particularly fearful of some kind of Saudi Alabama arising should our enlightened overlords ever avert their all-seeing gaze for a moment. To whatever degree red states and blue states do actually behave like the caricatures that their opponents make them out to be, I think it's more to say "fuck you" to the other side in the kulturkampf as anything else. Separation and self-determination would be more likely to make them grow the fuck up and act like adults rather than to continue down the path of polarization just to spite their equally idiotic opponents.

Mr Khan said:

Progress can be objectively measured as the optimization of human happiness.

So Colombia is the most progressive country in the world?

Mr Khan said:

Also, a lot of the would-be secessionist states are net takers of Federal money. America's balance-sheet would likely be better off with them gone, not the other way around.

"I can't let you leave. But don't worry, it's for your own good."

Completely irrelevant, and frankly reeks of concern trolling. That's a problem for seceders, not imperialists.

Okay, Jim Crow is unlikely given the shifting demographics in the south, but would there not be total bans on abortion and restrictions on many contraceptives? Would having gay sex not become a crime again? Lawrence v Texas was in 2003: would Texas really change that much in 10 years that they wouldn't want to go back to having their sovereign law restored? Many Southern states are trying lots of silly things (like removing Thomas Jefferson from social studies classes because he was "too radical") even as we speak, and the only thing stopping them in the cases that they are stopped is a force bigger than they are.

The Personhood amendment's failure in Mississippi does suggest that things have come far in regards to reproductive rights, but with all the noise coming from the right about rape-pregnancies and such (to the benefit of Democratic candidates who should easily have been defeated otherwise) its not difficult to imagine what might be tried in some states.

Although you're right, and I acknowledged, that it would not be a horrible thing per se, but it would be worse than the system that exists currently, which is why it should not be done. The long and short of it is that people should not be free to make bad decisions, insofar as preventing such is reasonably feasible and not overly burdensome.

Even ideology-neutral, their departure from the union would create little countries, weak countries, with few differences from the remaining United States save in that they are less able to provide better opportunities for their people due to simple matters of scale.