PDA

View Full Version : A experiment : A split America



ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 07:19 PM
One more inline with the conversvative tones: low taxes, tax loopholes, no soical security,privatized health,,no public schools Church taught in school, science limited.
Then another one, say more like Canada and Europe and the rest of the first world,universal health care,proper teacher wages, free education for all.
Why? Sometimes things (Socialism for example) seem scary to Americans more often than not because they have nothing to compare to, big fish in ocean with no competition effect. But if it were maybe it would not be so scary.

Would you like this experiment? Why or Why not? (Don't give me the 'why in fkl' drivel)
Discussion is good:

BIG OLAF
Jul 13, 2011, 07:25 PM
The American government wants to divide and conquer us. So far, they're succeeding. People are too afraid to try anything thanks to the media pounding fear into their minds on a daily basis.

Oh, and I voted "no", because there should only be one America. The second one:


Then another one, say more like Canada and Europe and the rest of the first world,universal health care,proper teacher wages, free education for all.

ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 07:27 PM
Not a hard task, sometimes you can see the government as a reflection of the people and culture of a state.

In some ways the internet has made it more polarizing, because people have echo-chambers and have no real discussion, just parroting.

Ah the Puritans how you fuck us over still. XD

Palle
Jul 13, 2011, 07:34 PM
A similar experiment went pretty poorly in the 1860s.

ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 07:53 PM
Of course it went poorly they beat the other side's ass and brought it together, making the side slow their progress.

Sord
Jul 13, 2011, 07:54 PM
That kind of experiment has one serious flaw in it: what if you wind up living in the one you don't want? Because unfortunately, moving isn't always the easiest thing in the world (especially if you were on the far end of the one you don't want.)

That aside, I don't think it will happen anytime soon. It would admittedly be interesting to see the results but I don't think it would be worth the initial upheaval and chaos it would cause just to find out. America will, more than likely, split up at some point, as all empires fall eventually, you just don't know when.

ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 07:58 PM
Thus why this at this point is hypothetical. Plus when given enough incentive people will move mountains to get what is needed.

As for not worth the upheaval and unrest? Well look at South Korea, Germany,Japan. They went though upheavals to come out better off in the end. Of course it can go the other way but it all depends on how the people grasp the situations. Sometimes things are never as clear cut.

Sord
Jul 13, 2011, 08:11 PM
Thus why this at this point is hypothetical. Plus when given enough incentive people will move mountains to get what is needed.

As for not worth the upheaval and unrest? Well look at South Korea, Germany,Japan. They went though upheavals to come out better off in the end. Of course it can go the other way but it all depends on how the people grasp the situations. Sometimes things are never as clear cut.

I'm honestly not to knowledgeable on how the Koreas have turned out. Supposedly South is fine and North is shit under Kim Jong Il's rule but I can't admit to looking into the matter. I know more about the Korean war itself than the current status of the countries. The thing is, that one in particular was caused mostly by proxy war of US Capitalism vs Soviet Communism, as well as plenty of bullshit caused by Imperialism before hand. Their native populace arguably didn't have a whole lot of say in the matter. We don't know how things would have turned out without such interference. Though I suppose that's neither here nor there since it is the way it is now.

Germany I know was also a Communist/Capitalist split deal as well. The benefits of "unrest" came in the unification though, not because of the split.

Japan I honestly know little to nothing about internal strife.

My stance is pretty much this though: they'd both suck in their own way. A government can't go on and not seem to fuck up and go corrupt. It's just a matter of which one becomes more corrupt and allows more fuck ups at a faster rate.

Leviathan
Jul 13, 2011, 09:19 PM
But we already have two Americas: North and South. :wacko:

Ghostcat
Jul 13, 2011, 09:45 PM
America is already split, it's just not official.

The democrat vs republican thing we have going on kinda sucks.

We don't need either extreme. What we need is somewhere in between the two.

We don't want all the huge government things a lot of europe has, because those just lead to a bankrupt country (As amply demonstrated lately). We also don't want little to no government, since that just leads to the strong lording it over the weak.

The happy medium is sadly hard to find, because just about anyone who runs for office wants it for their own reasons.

There's that old saying that the only people you can trust with power don't want it.

I also voted no. We definitely shouldn't formally divide the country. We already had a war about that.


P.S. The naming system of democrat and republican is silly.
The original use of the word democracy is for a form of government where the citizens have most of the power, and vote directly to run the country.

A republic is a form of government where power is vested in elected officials.

'democrats' want power to be in the hands of the elected officials.

'republicans' want the citizens to be more in control.

ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 10:11 PM
I would not say permanently split, I'm sure one side after burning itself may want to go back to a saner way of life.

Ghostcat
Jul 13, 2011, 10:12 PM
That's the thing. Neither one is the sane way.

Also, ruining both halves of the country seems like a bad way to improve things.

ShinMaruku
Jul 13, 2011, 10:27 PM
Would it really be ruining? Sometimes things must get changed radically for things to improve.

Ghostcat
Jul 13, 2011, 10:28 PM
For either one to be definitively proven to be better, the other would have to fail. Then the other half would need to bail it out. Sucks all around.


Instead, why not a bipartisan group to figure out what we need and don't need, then have the other lawmakers actually listen to what they say?

yoshiblue
Jul 13, 2011, 10:52 PM
Would it really be ruining? Sometimes things must get changed radically for things to improve.

You forget what happened to Rome. Is as lame as the few who wish California to become two states.

Sord
Jul 13, 2011, 11:02 PM
back to a saner way of life.

:burger::burger::burger:

Boogie Troll
Jul 13, 2011, 11:04 PM
North and South California makes a lot more sense than North and South Dakota.

Nitro Vordex
Jul 13, 2011, 11:04 PM
:burger::burger::burger:
mew~~

ShinMaruku
Jul 14, 2011, 12:46 AM
:burger::burger::burger:
I forgot about that guy. XD