Secession
-
Suppose that a growing political lobby within North Dakota wanted to seceed from the USA and become a politically independent entity.
Civilians could come and go across the ND/USA border, but ND would, in general, not respect US federal laws that it found disagreeable, and would not permit Federal law enforcement personell to operate within its borders.
A point of contention is what to do about federal assets in ND. Ideally, ND would retain some or all of the nuclear arsenal already located here, in addition to re-asserting control of the ND national guard and any associated equipment and facilities. This force would constitute the deterrant needed should the USA decide to become hostile, as it did in the previous War of Northern Aggression (commonly called the "Civil War").
In 2007, ND was the US's #1 wheat producer. ND also has the majority if the surface based ICBM fleet. ND also has vast quantities of undrilled oil in the western end of the state, and indiginous businesses specializing in piping, drilling, and refining.
The point of this is that many citizens of ND do not want to be bound by the misdeeds of Washington lawmakers. For instance, industrial hemp is legal in the state of ND, but Federal drug laws prohibit farmers from growing it.
The Federal government continues to rule unfavorably (from the point of view of many ND residents ) on many issues, like abortion, gay marraige, and currently is hearing a case on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
Activist groups continue to dominate national politics and the shift seems less and less appropriate for the day to day lives of residents of ND.
Montana has already stated that an unforavorable 2nd amendment ruling will violate the terms of the Montana statehood agreement with the US government. Many Montanans share some of the frustrations felt in ND about being stuck with poor decisions made far away in Washington, and a union between MT and ND may be likely. The federal government has tried to crush the independent government of Montana in the past -- most notably its unrestricted speed limit law in the 90s.
If the coasts want to continue to refer to us as the "Flyover States", why not part ways, legally, with the US, and use their acronym -- FSA -- to stand for our new entity, the Free States of America.
What are your thoughts on the idea of ND & MT leaving the USA? Would you move? Stay? Fight?
-
Im all for it, would definitely stay here
-
Sounds ok. But I doubt it will happen. But I could see other problems that we could face with this. We would have any federal money coming in. Our national guard would and already is low funded. The guard here gains money by us being deployed overseas from the federal government. We would definatley have to remove all immigrants from the state (not complaining about that at all), Becuase we couldnt afford to fund them like the feds do. We could potentially have a huge problem with drug trafficers and other illegal activities, because there is no threat of federal pinishment and ND being a rural state harder to be caught doing these things. Militia's may grow out of control. People may want to move here from other areas becuase they think that they could get away with chaos.
Wouldnt it end up costing us more money?
I definatley see the point with the second ammendment.I would probably stay living here.
-
In theory it sounds good.
But I honestly don't think that ND could support itself fully if we didn't have federal financial support. We would need to build up the borders and hire our own Border Patrol, for example. Sure we sell alot of wheat...but the gov't could tax any ND goods sold to suppliers in the US...no good.
There are the little things to account for. Financially ND would fail I think.
Oh yeah, you think the drug business is bad now? Wait until the feds aren't around, it'd get even worse.
-Eric
-
sell fargo to minnesota. i dont wanna go through customs everytime i cross the river
-
Rexwagon;222102 wrote:
...snip...We would definatley have to remove all immigrants from the state (not complaining about that at all), Becuase we couldnt afford to fund them like the feds do.Lulz.
-
I'd like to see what laws would be kept and what would be thrown out as well. I think that if it were to actually happen, it would either be a huge success, or a huge failure, with no real middle possibility. We'd need a ton of cash and a fairly large military just to get started and established.
It wouldn't make people on the coasts change their thinking about us, we would just become the "flyover country" rather than the "flyover state."
-
I'd have to move back to Fargo!!
-
north dakota needs a military?
wasnt that state like the 3rd most lethal state/country in the world at one point?
-
STiSchucky;222196 wrote:
north dakota needs a military?wasnt that state like the 3rd most lethal state/country in the world at one point?
I believe ND has a very high number of guns per capita if I'm not mistaken, in addition to a large amount of ICBMs, as already mentioned.
-
HandoEX;222093 wrote:
I love ND but not enough to fight to seceed from the rest of the country. This would be about the the only way to get me to move to Moorhead.x2^^^^ at that point you can keep your mosquito infested flatland.
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall
Torque is how far you take the wall with you -
STiSchucky;222196 wrote:
north dakota needs a military?wasnt that state like the 3rd most lethal state/country in the world at one point?
I do not know if it is still correct. But i know a couple of years ago if ND would have seceeded, it would be the 3rd largest Nuclear Party in the world, after Russia and the US. MT also has alot of that type of stuff.
-
KA-T_240;222216 wrote:
I do not know if it is still correct. But i know a couple of years ago if ND would have seceeded, it would be the 3rd largest Nuclear Party in the world, after Russia and the US. MT also has alot of that type of stuff.It would have been the 3rd most powerful nation in the world and nuclear party
-
Well, I'd hate to have to fight fellow Americans, and I don't think most people would raise arms against their fellow man unless things got really severe.
Regarding how the laws would be different, the goal would be to "reset" the government a bit and slim it back down. If one were to start with nothing and rebuild the laws and framework in modern society it would be pretty disruptive. A more pragmatic approach would be to basically start with what the law of the land is today and make planned cuts / rollbacks where it made sense and where there was populist / constitutional support.
I think it should be clear from my other posts that I'm a big advocate of low taxes, high individual responsibility, and high individual freedom. At first blush it seems like the federal income tax would be completely eliminated (we certainly wouldn't be paying washington DC). That's putting a ton of money back into peoples pockets. The question is -- can ND be self sufficient without additional taxes on its residents? It might be the case that to provide a reasonable quality of life as ND transitions to a more local, responsible philosophy of governance, additional taxes are levied above the current state income tax to stabilize any budget shortfalls (there'd be a budget shortfall because ND currently receives federal aid both directly and indirectly).
As the government continues to cut away the inherited fat, I would expect that tax burden to lessen. I'd expect that on Day 1 people would be paying far less than their old federal tax rates, but more than their state rate of today.
Generally, the themes I am interested in are
- reducing the cost of government to its citizens (i.e. lower taxes, lower fees, fewer mandatory payouts)
- strong protections for gun owners
- stop corporate subsidies
- stop making the government work against itself
(example: congress subsidizes some company to go build a factory. Then the EPA sues the company, and the government office that allowed it to happen) - relaxing drug enforcement somewhat
- backing off of prosecuting "victimless crimes" in general
- re-working intellectual property laws to increase competitiveness and progress
- relaxing and/or replacing government regulation with 3rd party services
(i.e. instead of Doctors deciding who is allowed to be a Doctor via the AMA (which is basically a doctors union, and keeps doctors salaries super inflated by restricting the number of new people who are legally allowed to practice medicine because they have a sweet deal with the government), why not let anyone be a "doctor" but make sure that there is sufficient information available to prospective patients to make a wise decision) - lessening the influence of lawyers on all aspects of the law and on life
I don't think my ideas are main stream, and I'm not running for president/dictator/whatever.
What would you change about the law if ND were to go its own way?
-
Yeah ND less than 20 years ago was one of the most powerful 'Nations' because of all the nukes that were stationed here. But they are all gone now
Well hey, was watching the old 80's movie War Games and ND's Grand Forks air force base was like the 2nd target of the 'Russian's' nukes. So we gotta be somewhat important
(probably because its a major refueling station for our military.)
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login