modest proposal of secession
hendersl at ix.netcom.com
Fri Jan 27 12:44:09 PST 2006
Actually, Eugene, you might remember when Gov. Arnold went to Washington to correct the discrepencies between California's econoic and tax contributions to the Feds and the amount of federal money coming back to the state. I can't remember the precise ranking, but as I recall, California had one of the lowest returns on taxes returned in the form of federal benefits.
I don't think it is at all far fetched to say, with Sandy, that Pacifica could secede without harm--after all, California's economy is one of the largest in the world, it trades with multiple Asian and othe rcountries, and nothing would prevent it from being a capitalist, democratic (small d) nation with plenty of clout. One downside, perhaps, would be that we'd lose federal defense money and Bechtel would relocate to keep lucrative federal projects, but on the other hand, Bechtel already does work for many other nations besides the US.
If someone doesn't start standing up to executive tyranny, secrecy, ignoring of rights and other branches of the Federal government, and torture soon, it may be very well worth contemplating some form of nonviolent action.
Indeed, for those of us who wonder what we would have done in the dying days of Weimar, this may present a constitutional opportunity to find out.
Prof. Lynne Henderson
>From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
>Sent: Jan 27, 2006 11:56 AM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: RE: modest proposal of secession
>Sandy Levinson writes:
>> > It is very clear that the "red states," especially the "ruggedly
>> > independent" Rocky Mountain states, are huge beneficiaries of
>> > redistributive federal programs financed primarily by the coastal
>> > "blue states." I tend to agree with Eugene that secession is a
>> > non-starter as a political matter, but I'd be curious as to exactly
>> > what he thinks California (or what I sometimes call "Pacifica,"
>> > consisting of California, Oregon, and Washington) get out
>> of being in
>> > the US.
> I'm surely no economist, but how about a simple list just off
>the top of my head?
> 1. A 200+-year-old history of free trade in goods and services.
> 2. A 200+-year-old history of free movement of labor.
> 3. A 140-year-old history of not needing to invest resources in
>military defense against a powerful neighbor, or in other problems
>caused by internationa lfriction.
> 4. An assurance, stemming from that history, that these
>conditions are not just newfangled inventions, subject to change with
>small changes in political winds. What do you think are the chances
>that there'll be serious new trade barriers on trade among European
>states, despite whatever EU rules there might be, in the next 20 years?
>What do you think are the chances that there'll be serious new trade
>barriers on trade among American states in the next 20 years?
> My guess is that this is all worth a titch more than whatever
>money the blue states -- or, to be precise, those states that have been
>blue in the last few elections, since even a young pup like me remembers
>1980, 1984, and 1988, when California voted Republican, or for that
>matter 1994, when California elected a conservative Republican governor
>-- lose in federal subsidies. But, hey, that's just me speaking;
>naturally, the many millions of Californians who favor secession (we've
>all heard from them, right?) have a different view.
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof