Liberal Arizona County Threatens Secession, Says State is too Conservative

Awesome! We need much more of this. If liberal counties would start seceding from red states, and conservative counties would start seceding from blue states, we’d be well on our way to anarcho-pluralism. Read the article.

Who Else Should Secede?

Since we’re on the subject of secession based on conservatives-gone-wild, what other states or cities might think of seceding?  This is a thought experiment of sorts—one that every socialism-hating patriot should consider since the liberal coastal state taxes fund their pork barrel projects.  And if pork barrel politics isn’t socialism, then what else qualifies?

1. California

True.  California is in a bit of a budget crisis, but as the seat of the entertainment and agricultural industries, Silicon Valley, pornography, not to mention the world class cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco (hell, San Diego might even qualify), California is not in want of anything, aside from energy (more on that later).

California boasts approximately $1.8 billion in gross state product, the highest of any state in the union.  The tax revenues from California have been redistributed all over the country, even down into those socialism-hating states to the southeast.  And given that California food feeds most of the nation, they’re certainly entitled to federal government bailout (what with all the taxes paid over the years).

Let the conservative states with significant fundamentalist Christian populations pay tariffs on all the food they purchase from liberal California.  California has great potential for alternative forms of energy, like solar, wind and ocean power.  And what is more, they are not in want of the intelligence to accomplish it.

2. New York City

Another case of a region’s wealth being redistributed to the pork-barrel states, New York City could sever itself from the rest of its State, but a secession from the Union would be far more problematic.  Too much of the U.S. economic interest is tied to the city.

In 1969, Norman Mailor and Jimmy Breslin ran on a ticket for the NYC mayoralty and city council presidency.  They suggested New York City secede from New York State, and the rest of the state call itself “Buffalo.”  Times have changed and Buffalo is no longer the manufacturing base it once was, but that probably wouldn’t bother upstate New York residents, who are regularly at odds with the state power wielded by New York City.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has even raised the possibility when he publicly noted that the city pays out $11 billion in taxes and gets virtually nothing back in return from the rest of the state.  The same could be said of all the red states who enjoy the federal benefits of New York City’s economic dominance.

3. Alaska

Alaska is a rogue state anyway and a chief beneficiary of pork-barrel projects financed by more economically robust state economies, so let’s just let this place go, and then Sarah Palin will finally get her wish of becoming president of a country.

Another possible scenario?  The Russians, drunk on high-octane beer, invade and occupy.  The rest of the U.S. is happy either way.

4. Utah

Enough said.

5. Texas

Texans like to talk a big game about how they were once upon a time their very own Republic, so why not let the red state secede as planned?  They clearly dislike being told what to do, especially by President Obama (not unlike Georgia Rep. Paul Broun), and they have an economy that could support their population with very cosmopolitan cities like Austin, Houston and Dallas.  There really is no reason for Texas to exist as part of the Union.

They have plenty of land, steers, BBQ recipes and cowboys to make this all happen: what are they waiting for?  Get on it boys!  Woooooeeee!  ”The stars at night are big and bright… (clap, clap, clap, clap) deep in the heart of Texas.”

Categories: Uncategorized

5 replies »

  1. Well I live in upstate New York, and I can tell you of the frustration that most politicians in the state are from NYC and will favor that city over the rest of the state everytime. And upstate is suffering for it.

  2. The Alaskan Native view on Alaskan secession is a cautious one. An independent Alaska would likely not be a friend to Alaskan Natives. Still, the outlook varies from issue to issue, and really highlights how there are many competing interests in the state, some departments and factions which may appear to be your allies, others not so much.

    The State of Alaska is a pretty blatant marriage of the corporate and political class. An independent Alaska would be cause for Alaskan Natives to tool up and go to war. Maybe it would be just the spark we need, come to think of it.

  3. Post Alaskan secession would look like this:

    Capital moves from Juneau to the Anchorage area. As a result, Juneau’s population drops by 20,000 white people, leaving SE Alaska mostly Alaska Native outside of Ketchikan and couple other small towns. With the Tongass National Forest no longer under the control of the US Feds, Tlingits clans start reclaiming their fishing waters (simply by doing what they do, fishing,) largely ignoring the Alaska government’s claim over the region and waterways. Alaska Government starts giving mining and logging companies good ole’ boy contracts to rape the once closed off Tongass National Forest. Alaskan Natives rename SE Alaska, declaring it Tlingit Country and the entrenched Native Population (20,000+ or so strong in one of the most rural areas in world) begins a war of attrition to protect their salmon runs from pollutive strip mining. White fishermen in the region remain neutral, staying out of the conflict after being assured limited territorial waters of their own.

    Bring it on!


  4. These kinds of issues are of vital importance in developing a pan-secessionist strategy, and part of the reason why I think that ordinary “states rights” constitutionalism or even full independence by states does not address many questions that need resolution so far as eliminating the U.S. regime goes. When the U.S. eventually falls apart like the Communist empires of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia did, we don’t want to get what they got: gangster crony capitalism or full-on ethnic warfare.

    That’s why the pan-secessionist alliance will need to have a well-developed plan for dismantling the state-dominated corporatist economy and upholding the legitimate rights of minorities and dissidents in the seceded territories. Take Texas, for example. It’s fairly predictable that an independent Texas would be generally conservative in its approach to politics, but that state also has a large liberal enclave around Austin and is a genuinely multicultural state in terms of having a “majority-minority” population demographically. We wouldn’t want different political or ethnic groups oppressing each in an independent Texas. One of the Texas secessionist groups put out a proposal some years ago for an independent Texas organized as a federation of 350 largely sovereign counties, bound only by a very limited Articles of Confederation-type of government. Under such a system, a liberal metro area like Austin could become even more liberal, whereas Tyler, Texas, former home of Gary North 🙂 !, could become a fundamentalist stronghold. Predominately Hispanic counties might be bilingual or even have Spanish as the primary public language, whereas others might be majority black or oriented towards conservative whites.

    My state of Virginia is one of the most conservative in the U.S., although it also has a fairly large African-American population, which explains in part why VA went for Obama in ’08. The northern Virginia area adjacent to Washington, D.C. is a bastion of upper-middle class liberalism. It’s economically very prosperous, one of the most affluent areas of the U.S. It’s also very culturally liberal and multicultural in its politics, but very anti-working class and anti-lumpenproletariat in its economics. I would prefer that an independent VA exclude that region. They can be a separate territory of their own. Likewise, the capital city of Richmond where I live in is majority black, large amounts of poverty, large lumpen class, very corrupt local government dominated by the usual corporatist suspects and local special interest groups like real estate interests. The surrounding counties are very white bread in many instances and very Republican/conservative leaning. I would want the city and the surrounding counties to be separate from one another as political entities as well, although there could be some kind of federation for the management of joint interests like maintenance of roads or public utilities. There are also a lot of very conservative rural counties in the western and southern parts of the state that are strongholds of religious fundamentalism, and in some instances, also have a very high unemployment rate.

    The city of Richmond itself is much like Detroit, though not quite as far gone. It would be an excellent location to begin implementing some of the alternative economic ideas for non-corporate economic development that Carson and other left-libertarians/left-anarchists have written about. Also, violence fueled by the drug war has been a major problem here for decades. Richmond as an independent city-state could end the war on drugs and other comparable policies without having to answer to the state government made of up delegates from more conservative areas or to the feds.

  5. Interesting brainstorming!

    The Tongass National Forest, when opened up, could support a much larger population even without clear cutting and mining. I’d suspect that we’d have to get used to immigration into the region. I’d advocate that our various clans resettle their traditional regions and call back our people who have moved out of the area. Part of our tribe extends into Canada. We already have very strong ties with these clans and other tribes in British Columbia, the Yukon and Washington. We’re all apart of the same cultural group. I imagine these ties would strengthen in a post US state world.

    Whites in the region would likely get more of what they want: more fishing, hunting and logging. As long as everybody keeps their negative externalities to themselves I imagine all would be well. I bet we could come up with some sort of regional plan and federation to deal with natural resource and environmental issues. There will always be tension in the region, though.

    As for the rest of Alaska…. It’s a huge state. Oil reigns. The permanent fund dividend (payment to Alaskans from oil revenues) would likely need to continue in one form or another; otherwise you’d have people shooting holes into the pipeline again. There are fishing waters all along the gulf and Bering sea. I’d be interested to see what sort of arrangements are made up that way. There would likely be some sort of regional federation for each.

    I split my time between AK and Oregon. Oregon and Washington have the same rural vs. city divide as everywhere else. Eastern Oregon and Washington have more in common with Idaho than anything west of the Cascade Mountain Range. I can imagine a federation of sovereign counties would work well there. Seattle, Olympia, Portland, Eugene and a few other towns would go way to the left after a break up. They’d probably also join with Vancouver and form the infamous Republic of Cascadia! There are some major concentrations of brain power work forces in those cities that will ply their trade one way or another. They can export software, sportswear marketing, air planes, etc. without the rest of their respective states.

    I bet some manufacturing would come back to the area. I, too, am a big fan of Carson’s ideas on decentralized manufacturing. I think we’d see less exportation of jobs overseas and less crap made in China imported. Less money funneling up to oligopolies and tax collectors means a man’s labor will go further in supporting his family. At least I hope that’s the way it works out!

    Out of all of this I’d hope to see some regional plans for environment protection. There’s enough economic and political clout coming out of the major cities to set aside some space for something akin to National and State Parks. Conservatives in this region like their wilderness, too, of course!

Leave a Reply