Would Calexit be a good thing? | Hacker News Reader

Would Calexit be a good thing?

waitbutwhy.com

32 pointsdavidbarker64 comments

This is one of the stupidest things ever published on WaitButWhy.

The Civil War killed more Americans (~750k) than WWI and WWII combined. Think of it as SouthExit. There are powerful forces binding this union together, and they will not allow a gentle transition to an independent California. So any one who wants Calexit, wants war, and war is really, really stupid. I'm baffled by the irresponsibility of this discussion. This isn't like moving out of your parents' basement because they told you to stop smoking weed.

Let's just remember, when we compare Calexit to Brexit, that Britain was and is a sovereign nation, and at no point in its history did it cease to be so. Stupid as Brexit was, the UK's right to leave the EU was enshrined in the articles of the EU. California is not Great Britain. The analogy does not hold.

Calexit is sponsored by Russia. "Yes California" is run by a guy based in Yekaterinburg.[0] What should this tell us? The enemies of the US want California to secede. Separatists are playing into their hands. Russia sabotaged the US presidential election, and now it is trying to break up the continental 48. That would lead to a weakened and divided country, much more so than it is today.

Secession would also lead to a more fragmented North America, indecisive as Europe.

There is no such thing as a clean slate. Calexit does nto present us with that opportunity. History is a nightmare from which we cannot escape, as Joyce said.

The WBW author is basically saying he wants California to exit to speed the advance of technology so he can become immortal. Why should we care about his immortality? And why should we believe that Calexit would accelerate technological development? He gave zero substantive argument that Calexit would have an affect on tech.

Just remember, every state in the US benefits from its close relationship with all the other states. There are huge positive externalities to union and the free movement of goods, people and capital. All of that ends with Calexit. Anyone who see a carefree paradise in separatism is living in a fantasy world.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/us/yes-california-calexit...

Brexit is a mess. It's the first time that I'm seeing British people leaving their own country and come to Switzerland where they don't know the language at all. My friends who moved to London from Eastern Europe want to leave, because the worth of their salary dropped by 20% on the global scale, and all they can hear about is Brexit and the negativity around it. Britain is not fun anymore for anybody living there. Also older people who voted for the Brexit are just starting to realize how much they depend on foreigners.

I'm British and would prefer to remain in the EU. Yet I am quite satisfied to remain here in Edinburgh, both for employment and the quality of life. Believe it or not, there are a great many who share my opinion.

No. People in the current bubble forget that California is usually broke/in legislative crises, which might be about to happen again. Texas is probably the only state capable of thriving if it secedes, CA doesn't even have it's own electric grid.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_b...

* http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400...

MA and NY have major economies and plenty of legislative cooperation.

And no shared border. Also, NY State is much more conservative than people assume, the State legislature is usually controlled by Republicans.

> And no shared border.

TIL MA and NY do not share a border...

And no shared border.

Massachusetts borders New York to the east. Or were you thinking California?

Yes. It's a different thing to have partners in the legislature vs 2 of the most powerful states willing to join your new country.

I don't know if the USA could be remotely the same if NY, MA, TX, and FL seceeded. I do know that they wouldn't at the same time, just by the nature of geography.

You act as though power exports from Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Nevada and Utah would somehow cease overnight if California were to become its own country. This is of course false.

It wouldn't continue uninterrupted forever.

Those power exports are paid for in currency denominated by the US dollar.

California is no longer part of the US, remember?

Each of those states would have to negotiate with the new Republic to receive something in equal worth to the power they were delivering.

And if they don't get it, they're not going to give away power for free. Their governments won't let them, their constituents won't let them, their budgets won't let them, and lastly, the FERC won't let them.

I don't see why paying for the power would suddenly become an issue. If California can afford it now, they'll be able to afford it later, even if it's paid in a different currency--it's still the same amount of wealth.

There still has to be two parties to a purchase. You can have all the currency with which to pay but if the seller does not want to sell, it doesn't really matter how much you have. The very big problem is that, regionally speaking, California may wind up a willing buyer with no willing sellers and no way to compel anyone to sell to it.

That's a wonderfully brave assertion of falsehood! Independence would be a problem for California. The unequal yoke that the Colorado River Compact provides now already has other participating states ticked off at California for how much water and power is diverted to SoCal. That Compact, though, is an agreement among US states and the federal government. To include an independent California would require making a treaty subject to advice-and-consent of the the US Senate. If that wasn't in place and as there's been no likelihood that the Southern Nevada Water Authority would be willing to let the current Compact terms continue to give California the majority of Lake Mead's water, watching SoCal lose a major source of water let alone power is indeed in the cards. Staying in the union means California keeps its preferential terms under the Compact. Leaving means everything has to be renegotiated and since SoCal has been sucking Lake Mead and Lake Powell dry there's little interest by the upstreams in letting that continue.

Yeah, I thought it was hilarious to expect California to show the US and the world how a country should be run.

It's hard for me to see a scenario where a Calexit doesn't mark the end of American hegemony and quite likely the United States itself. A successful Calexit would without doubt lead to a New York exit. Now there's no way Texas is sticking around. And the Carolinas and Florida want to make a go of it too, etc. Once the pillars have fallen, the house collapses. Isn't that basically how all great empires slowly crumble?

So the stakes do seem quite a bit higher than outlined in this article and others I've read like it.

Would it really be so bad? Cultures/beliefs/values vary tremendously from region to region, and smaller country subsets would be able to iterate faster to support their own value/belief systems.. Texas and related states that join it's new union could be as red as they want, California and those who join w/ can be as blue, and have things like Single-payer healthcare, no public prisons, no anti-immigration laws and open borders. -- U.S. as a super power has been waning for awhile now, and will continue to do so. Rome conquered the entire world, yet somehow a group of germanic tribes brought it to the ground. -- Every empire in history has fallen, America is no different.

Putting everyone into echo chambers is the stupidest idea. You'll get such radical agendas pushed. Balance and variety is good.

Too bad that's what we've done... If you look at America's history, political parties have been divided by a few issues and that's it. For the most part, the political parties until the 1900s followed Washington's wish of not being divided. Sadly, these modern political parties have decided that issues must be divided by party. This has lead to pretty much every issue we face today to be voted against by one party simply because the other party thinks they can't support it because it's somehow a partisan idea. The media has also made this worse by not documenting things objectively. Citizens think one party is pure evil and the other one is magically full of saints. Unless you ask a libertarian about which party is better, you'll probably get a terribly slanted view. I don't understand this. Both parties have some rotten people, but why is it expected of the American public (it is expected) to vilify one party? Issues about whether the government should be small and whether agrarian life is best have left to be about whether the government should tax its citizens into submission and whether it should be a police state. The much more rigid divide in beliefs is good for no one. I can't vote for anyone without them contradicting some of my beliefs because I don't follow the awkward divide in political ideals.

Interesting that there is no mention of demographics. Hispanics account for almost 40% of the population, close to 80% of which are Mexican. Following secession and taking history into account, there is reason to speculate that California could become the subject of Mexican annexation, or at the very least, subject to turmoil that could arise from stoking such sentiments among a very sizable chunk of the population, most of which is not associated with tech. Furthermore, secession, if it is to be meaningful, would make a geopolitical impact that would arguably be good for neither California nor the rest of the US (nor the world for that matter; with a weakened US, worse things can fill the vacuum). What I could see is something more in line with right-leaning thought i.e. greater autonomy of the states and greater decentralization of power.

(On a somewhat humorous note: if Putin is spurring Calexit movements, then it sounds to me like a perversion of Pilsudski's Prometheism[0], except that Pilsudski was motivated by a desire to neutralize the threat that Russia posed.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheism

There is a plethora of issues that have to be addressed, to name a few:

* The U.S. Government would have to be ok w/losing a ~1/6th of it's economy.

* California has no military; funding such would be expensive.

* All existing multilateral agreements the U.S has entered into would NOT apply to an independent California. An independent California would have less bargaining power in renegotiating said agreements.

I don't disagree but the California National Guard is under state control normally, when it isn't federalized by special order. Some 23,000 individuals. They'd have to act quickly to seize control before the federal government but it could be done.

I think the wiser plan would be for technology companies who are pro-secession join forces and create a militia of tech -- i.e. invest in robotic/drone tech for military purposes, that way they can unleash a war if need be--but one of robots/drones instead of people. I think the next world war will be more about technology than it will people fighting people. Controlling drone/robotic weapons tech could be huge for a country wanting to secede.

Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong. (username v. relevant)

I love that this writer puts on no airs.

>As far as defense goes—would you want to fuck with a country with the world’s best drones, robots, tech weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberattack abilities? No one would dare attack California.

Most people try to sound more important and qualified when discussing something so radical.

Whether it's good or not Cal would instantly get a civil war with the Jefferson people unless the exit agreement included allowing a State of Jefferson to replace Cal.

Also missing from things is the fact that more rural parts of the west coast are much more conservative than areas close to the ocean.

Look up continued interest in the State of Jefferson.

Proposition 8 added "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" to the state constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that violated the federal Constitution. If California left the US, would that resurrect Proposition 8? How about Proposition 187, which didn't modify the state constitution, but set up a system of state laws that a federal court ruled violated the federal Constitution?

Those are legitimate questions that would have to be answered as part of the national government California would set up. Going back over all of the historical differences between US federal and CA state law. I suspect however, that nothing would revert. If those were important issues to CA citizens after secession, I think it's more likely that such propositions would be reintroduced.

The United States is a maritime superpower, able to project power across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Losing the Pacific coast would end that. I can't imagine it being let go easily.

The bulk of U.S. naval forces in California are in the San Diego region. It's possible the U.S. could negotiate a border that leaves the naval bases as well as the Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton as part of the United States. (The entire swath of Southern California below Los Angeles.)

He who controls the nukes, controls California's destiny.

And for non-American readers, those are located in the big, flat central states that California would be seceeding from.

If command authority to launch ICBMs devolves to the states where the missiles are stationed, that will be an indicator that civilization is over. The political fate of California would be a footnote.

If somebody is stealing your car do you shoot out the tires with a rocket launcher to stop him? That's what nuking California would amount to.

Launching nukes would be suicidally stupid for a number of reasons. Firstly, we're upwind of the rest of the US and radioactive fallout would be transported to adjacent states. We didn't realize it when we were performing original tests in Nevada, but now we know there was a significant spike in cancers occurring in the people of St. George Utah, for example, as a result of 1950s nuclear tests in Nevada.

A more immediate and practical concern is that California is responsible for a significant proportion of the United States' food supply.

This post might be worth a damn if Tim thought a little bit harder about why Russia thinks Calexit would be good for them.

It's not obvious or true that anything good for Russia is bad for the US, but when you see the country who recently interfered in an election (propaganda, releasing dnc emails) is also interested in weakening the union of your states further.... maybe consider why before jumping on board.

California is almost certainly going to break off from the larger United States in our lifetime. The interests of the United States are already too heterogeneous to be effectively served by a single government, and the problem is only going to get worse.

I don't believe California will be successful if it attempts to secede solo though. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if it is going to work, it will need to secede as part of a coordinated action with Washington and Oregon. The end result will probably be a commonwealth of nations relationship similar to the one shared by Canada and Great Britain. I've even got a catchy name for this new nation: the pacific coalition of states, or Pac Coast for short.

I'm also going to go out on a limb and predict that a combination of pushback on federal enforcement of marijuana laws and immigration policy is going to be the match that starts the fire burning. I believe popular pressure on both of these issues is going to force the coastal states to take a stand rather than roll over, and things are going to escalate from there.

"California is almost certainly going to break off from the larger United States in our lifetime."

What?! That won't happen.

On what planet do you expect that the US at large is going to accept 1/7th of their economy seceding without a fight?

I saw it here in NYC after the election - "We'll secede, and we'll fight the other states if it comes to it." OK, good luck winning when no one owns guns, trucks, generators etc.

It's a pipe dream. You can't win a war with a bicycle and a baseball bat. Montana could probably win a war of secession, but this ain't Montana.

"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail. " (Gen. Sherman)

Ironic reversal, but you're 100% correct.

In this hyper-connected social media age, the horror of a war waged on people that you closely identify with would have the near instant effect of turning the population against the government waging it.

It is much more likely that the federal government would try to put strings in place so that it could act as a puppet-master for the newly "independent" nation.

The EU is about to see 16% of its economy disappear so there's precedent...

The EU isn't a country, never has been, and the UK only joined in the early 70's. What existed before was essentially a lot of tribes who'd been at war on and off for a few thousand years.

What are they going to do? Occupy the entire coast with federal armed forces?

Sure, they could do that, but it's hard to take any sort of moral high ground or project strength on the world stage when you are forced to militarily occupy your own country against its will.

That said, I doubt any states are realistically going to secede, but at least Texas won't be the only ones constantly going on about it now.

...Moral high ground? We've been manufacturing that since Vietnam, and people still haven't caught on well enough to stop it happening again. The economic devastation brought about through secession would be the casus belli anyway.

I don't know. Americans were fine claiming the "high ground" the last time a bunch of states and territories tried to secede and forced back into the union with military force.

The thing people forget when talking about secession is that unless the constitution was explicitly written to make affordances for future secessions, every attempt at secession is illegal and can be considered an act of civil war.

Aside from "voting irregularities" one of the major talking points when the Crimean peninsula voted to secede from Ukraine and be annexed into Russia was that there was no legal basis for them to do this, even if the elections had been undisputed.

> I don't know. Americans were fine claiming the "high ground" the last time a bunch of states and territories tried to secede and forced back into the union with military force.

Slavery.

Yes, and look how thoroughly the North acted to secure the rights of former slaves!

Americans also like to make every historic victory sound like the entire conflict was about moral ideals and they were the flawless defenders of the Right Thing.

Interestingly the way people outside the US are taught about the American Civil War is far more nuanced: state rights, economical reasons, sovereignty, etc.

But I guess "the North declared war on the seceding South because the South was literally worse than Hitler" is a valid interpretation too. Teach the controversy, right?

I'm not sure there would be much opposition. Without California fucking things up, conservatives would reliably win the electoral AND the popular vote. The people with the most to lose are liberals in red states who would become a permanent minority.

Personally, I would not want to live in an independent California. I love everyone's good ("bleeding heart") intentions, but our legislative system seems fatally flawed.

Cali represents far too much GDP, far too much raw valuable coastline to ever let go. It would be cheaper to kill every last man woman and child in the state, and repopulate it, than it would be to let it secede.

Never mind what Lincoln knew... if one goes, the union will wall.

Not just the economy.

You'd also need high level US military leaders to go insubordinate, voluntarily ignore their chain of command, and "donate" the assets of the US armed services to the Republic of California.

Texas is the only state that could probably put up a fight, but it'd be very ugly and very bloody.

Secession almost always equals war.

I think the folks advocating for secession trivialize the fact that the end result is armed conflict and not knowing which side your neighbor is on.

And Brexit is not precedent whatsoever -- Britain can exit from the EU because there was no large amount of shared military/defense assets based within the UK, and the EU is primarily an economic cooperation effort.

I have no doubt that many military leaders would defy commands to kill non-aggressors that they have a sense of kinship with. Unlike the civil war, we don't have the moral high ground provided by slaver to drive men to kill their brothers.

I suspect that the federal government would try to negotiate a secession that gave them some power over the newly formed nation, in order to "give the people what they want" while maintaining the status quo as much as possible.

At least the southern states in 1861 had the advantage of providing a large percentage of the prewar officer corps and West Point graduates, as well as graduates of the other military academies like VMI and the Citadel. The demographics of the current US military are not favorable for liberal coastal regions thinking of secession.

This planet perhaps. The divide between rural populations and urban populations have grown so far that people in city hubs feel more kinship toward other major cities around the world than they do toward their rural co-citizens.

Division is a dangerous thing. The us at large might not have a choice.

I agree 100%

My friends from Long Island don't know a single person in the military. Not 1. That does not bode well for them in a theoretical war of secession.

I would go further and say that California will split into 7 states, Washington and Oregon will split into 5 between them.

Then we can go further and call this new union the Twelve States of the Pacific, or Pac12.

No.

Correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines :)

The very idea is insane. I think we need to do a better job of fighting the divisive forces attempting to destroy this country, led by a domestic terrorist like George Soros.

The site itself seems to be run by children[1]. This is where HN news is coming from now?

http://waitbutwhy.com/wait-but-who

The right thinks Soros funds everything. The left thinks the Koch brothers fund everything.

Me, I'm waiting around for a shadowy billionaire to fund my histrionic internet posting. $30/per trolling comment seems fair.

  I'm waiting around for a shadowy billionaire to fund my histrionic internet posting.

Me, too. I keep looking for such an offer in the "Who is hiring?" postings, but no dice.

You can tell there are always a bunch of shill posts on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com