Hacker News Reader

Comment by _m8fo | Hacker News Reader

What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit?

1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.

2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them.

3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of its membership of the US?

View on HN

>Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.

I really don't think this is likely. People mention this about every demographic change. How if women didn't get the right to vote, republicans would have won every major election. Or if immigration continues at the current rate, republicans will never win again.

But isn't it weird that the current demographics happen to be balanced almost perfectly between republicans and democrats? What's the probability of that happening by chance?

If California left, the median voter would move a bit to the right, sure. But the parties would move to follow the median voter as they always have, and balance things out. Maybe the Republicans benefit in the short term. But after being in power long enough, there would be more voters wanting change than are satisfied with the status quo. Which always happens eventually. And the cyclical nature of our democracy would continue. And the trends and demographics of the US are moving left in the long term anyway. Removing California only delays that.

You make an excellent point, however I think the main difference between this compared to 15th or 19th amendments is that this wouldn't apply to all of the states and roughly equal amounts.

Nope. Those are my thoughts exactly. The obvious implication of CalExit to me is civil war. Like you I definitely think a state leaving undermines the very nature of the United States. Political motivations aside, the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war.

For me it's an amusing thought to entertain as a form of escapism but I really hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.

> ...the idea of California leaving bears many similarities to South Carolina during the 1800s, and we know how quickly that turned into war.

1. Asking people ignore slavery's contributions to the civil war is not reasonable.

2. Many states, California included to some degree, feel the very nature of the United States has been slowly eroding for some time with no real checks on that erosion. There will be a tipping point eventually. Peaceful secessions (with the option to re-enter the union if it's mutually agreed upon) seem like a good way for states to enforce the principles of federalism, especially since the national government, Supreme Court included, seem disinterested in that goal. Real violence seems the most likely when people feel wronged, unheard, and that they have no reasonable and peaceful way to address the issues. Keeping people trapped in a country they feel doesn't represent them seems like a recipe for violence, not a way to preserve the peace.

1. Even if you take slavery into account, I see a lot of similarities between the Civil War and CalExit.

For the southern states, many wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons. It was very cheap labor, and banning slavery would have meant less money for Southern states imposed on them by outsiders who did not live their societies or work their jobs.

I see the same parallels here with CalExit. Even on this thread, people bring up how California unfairly pays more net to the federal government while red states take more federal resources. CalExit doesn't have the (IMO) moral reprehension of slavery, but from my perspective I see people upset that outsiders who don't share our lives and views are dictating our bottom line.

2. I highly doubt that the federal government would let any state undergo peaceful secession. A secession by its nature is a threat to the United States. Allowing states to leave will mean the states aren't united. Furthermore, it won't just be California. Off the top of my head, states like Washington, Oregon, and New York are generally as unhappy as California in with the state of our government, and allowing one state to leave will open the floodgates for other states.

This to me means the obvious consequence is violence erupts if we attempt to secede, even with peaceful intentions at first. As another user on this thread stated, California will not win an armed conflict. The US military is much stronger than our California National Guard.

I understand your political sentiments, and I do agree that the current state of national politics is a major issue. However, I don't see a peaceful CalExit as either practical or realistic.

I honestly think that for a long time as corruption has gotten worse in America, so too has America become 'too big NOT to fail'. Every major empire in history -- even ones founded as Republics have fallen. We're not likely to stop history from repeating itself.

If there were 50 different states, hopefully w/ open borders - each state could dictate their own social programs. Some could be a lot more like Denmark/Sweden.. others more like the old U.S.A. where you fend for yourself, and look out for nobody else. Each state would be able to set their own agendas, taxes, etc.. -- There would be more competition between individual states to attract the best people/talent/companies/etc... to grow their economies.

I don't think it's a matter of what if, but when.

The South seceded so it could keep the "right" to own human beings. There was a sense of moral duty on the part of many in the U.S. to literally fight to make sure that injustice wasn't perpetuated. There's no analog in a California secession.

Of course, there probably aren't strong opinions about this either way, but most red state citizens I know would have a more "good riddance" attitude about California leaving the U.S., especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries. Meaning, I don't see the political math adding up to total war in this case.

> There was a sense of moral duty on the part of many in the U.S. to literally fight to make sure that injustice wasn't perpetuated. There's no analog in a California secession.

While it may not have been, independent of the slavery issue, at the time of the Civil War (though even that is debatable), the indivisibility of the Union is now a moral issue with a substantial segment of the population.

And, in fact, many of the things that would be defining issues for a California/US split under the current regime are moral issues that their supporters (on both sides, and in opposing ways) see as direct analogs to slavery. (Abortion rights on one side vs. rights of the unborn on the other being a prime example.)

> especially if trade and travel were relatively open between the countries

Why on Earth would you expect that either the current protectionist, closed-borders Washington regime or any hypothetical separatist Sacramento regime seeking to free California from it would support "relatively open" trade and travel?

> Why on Earth would you expect that either the current protectionist, closed-borders Washington regime or any hypothetical separatist Sacramento regime seeking to free California from it would support "relatively open" trade and travel?

Exactly, people are taking CalExit too lightly. Man, it's basically treason and people talk about it like growing up and moving out of home.

Was it treason when Canada left the British Empire?

> Nope. Those are my thoughts exactly. The obvious implication of CalExit to me is civil war.

No one in California or the remaining union is committed enough about this topic to enter into a war. California couldn't conscript enough forces to defend itself without creating their own revolution.

> hope people aren't taking this seriously. It'd be disastrous for both the country and California.

When I first heard about this I wondered if it might actually bring about reform. But then I heard that one of the individuals pushing for it has ties to Russia. I apologize because that sounds like FUD but I feel hypersensitive about Russia sowing global discord these days.

I think you're right about all that, and that it's even worse than that.

With what military would the new California defend itself? What would stop the United States-sans-California from immediately annexing California as a territory, putting things in the exact same situation as now, but without any of the self-determination afforded by being a state? I don't know how realistic that is, but it's hard to reason about the hypothetical world where this proposal succeeds, and it seems like a serious risk.

Escape is not the solution. All it does is leave the world's most powerful country in the control of the people you disagreed so strongly with that you wanted to leave.

Maybe the California national guard; although since it's federally funded, it may need to follow the money. The California State Military Reserve is a fully state agency, although it's much smaller, and it's potentially subject to command by the President as well.

Then again, if all the blue states left, the remaining country would no longer be the most powerful country.

Maybe not, but the remaining country can still severely harm California. Additionally I wouldn't assume that California-based military will support CalExit.

I lived in San Diego and spent a lot of time with active duty sailors + marines down there when I attended Community College. They were from all over the country, and the vast majority were from red states. I befriended active duty military from Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and South Carolina. Conversely, despite being a military city I only came across two people from California.

What I'm getting at is in the event of civil war I can't see the majority of armed forces in California supporting CalExit.

> This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.

I would suspect that the parties would realign and there would still be healthy political competition, eventually if not in the short term.

> there are certain states that subsidize others

This meme is true in some respects, but contains a limited perspective. California is a net contributor of money, but other states are net contributors of other things. Young American technologists, for example, move to the Bay Area. They're not born and trained there to move to the Kentucky technology scene, at least that's not the trend yet. The ranks of the military is disproportionately filled by young people from red states. California is a net importer of water. And so on.

> Also, more practically, would California even afford to maintain its current existence without the many subsidies it presumably receives as part of its membership of the US?

Yes, because it sends more to the federal government than it receives in subsidies.

Disagree. Statehood is an inherent subsidy, what with how interstate commerce is protected and the international peace maintained. Many Federal expenditures are not motivated by per-capita considerations, but rather foreign-strategic considerations. Federal tax income vs Federal spending is not the right way to value a state's membership in the Union, the costs of secession are.

Is the United States as a whole greater than the sum of its parts?

I don't understand how it would undermine democracy. Can you explain please? Surely it would just redraw the lines and democracy would continue.

In a working democracy, "my side lost" means reformulating until the next election. When you throw in "redraw boundaries," it adds epicycles [1].

This is workable--if undesirable--at lower levels, e.g. Congressional districts [2]. It falls apart at the scales of Constitutional quantums, i.e. branches of the federal government and states. If your group can double its exposure in the Senate, why can't mine?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/court-say...

The key words being "in a working democracy".

I think the US has poor democracy. The electoral college means my vote here in California doesn't matter (I typically don't participate in the charade of the presidential election although I do vote in other races, mostly state wide). Same for a Texan's vote.

I think Brexit was stupid so I'm hesitant to support Calexit, but I think the unfair system definitely fuels the flames. I have to admit it would be nice to live in a country where my vote would count no matter where in the country I'm from.

> key words being "in a working democracy"

We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy. (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)

Perhaps the fatal flaw of democracies is their No True Scotsman [1] tendency. If every democracy can tear itself apart when some fraction of it feels it is no longer a democracy, and if that threshold is too low, then non-democracies will outperform the democracies. (I do not believe this is the case.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

> We don't have a great democracy. But it's a democracy.

"Democracy" is not binary. You can embody the idea of "democracy" to various degrees. For example, the US is certainly _more_ of a democracy now that African Americans and women can vote. In the future, it may become even more of a democracy if every adult can cast a meaningful vote regardless of what state they're resident in.

> (If you can realistically discuss seceding, you're in a free country.)

I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.

> I'm not sure this has anything to do with democracy. Canada peacefully seceded from the [non-democractic] Commonwealth in 1867.

Canada was still part of the Empire until 1982, and remains part of the Commonwealth of Nations. It absolutely did not secede from the Commonwealth in 1867 (which would have been difficult, since the Commonwealth wasn't officially established until 1931, and the Dominion of Canada was itself established from the unification of three separate British colonies—Canada, which became Quebec and Ontario; Nova Scotia; and New Brunswick—in 1867.)

Think about it, what about all blue states secede from the red country while all the red counties secede from blue states? Or even blue neighborhoods can recede from red counties even?

If you only allow the same color in a country, then what do you need democracy for? And how can you blame people for being intolerant towards diversity?

IMHO, US is still too young a country, you need more time to and experiences.

Actually it's a republic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeTbDdl7XiE

> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit?

Plenty, for Russia. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/why-russia-lo...

> The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California.

Not really, because California attempting to secede would guarantee civil war, both within California (which, has a very large and disproportionately well armed minority that would rather be governed by the current federal majority than the current state majority) and between California and the Feds (the latter spurred by the former if it didn't happen for other reasons), and chances can't increase beyond 100%.

Can't California just pass a law that protects all it's citizens and companies from any repercussions of not-paying federal income taxes...i.e. -- stay part of the union, but without the taxation, because nobody in California will enforce tax evasion at the federal level?

No, it can't. California could choose not to assist the Federal government (anti-commandeering doctrine), but cannot Constitutionally prevent federal officers from enforcing federal tax law by both civil and criminal process (supremacy clause).

Do federal tax collectors/auditors ever use local police to bring people to justice over tax evasion ? The state government could simply not offer any such support, and require the feds to do everything on their own. I wonder if they could create a law that wouldn't allow extradition out of California for said trials unless approved by the governor.

> What exactly would be the advantage of Calexit?

California would immediately have 30% more money due to not funding the red states.

> 1. Republicans would win every national election for the foreseeable future. This is bad, republican or not, as it essentially undermines democracy.

Not a great argument to the blue states. Blue states really wouldn't care as they would leave the red staters and their corrupt congressmen to wallow in penury without blue state money.

> 2. The chance of a civil war would grow significantly as other states consider following California. I believe this to be true because let's face it, there are certain states that subsidize others. This has to be true, given the discrepancies of wealth between them.

The Civil War was won because the North had the population and the production. The blue states have the production and the population. The red states would not win if it came to civil war and, if things actually came to Calexit, it would be likely be CoastalExit.

In addition, the armed services are now very much "Just In Time". If you shut down California, you're going to have a very difficult time resupplying and repairing your army. California can simply let your army grind to a halt while waiting you out. Logistics through hostile territory is EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. The army couldn't secure Baghdad; they'll have no hope with LA or SF.

Finally, Californians really don't begrudge helping the red states out. Honestly. What they begrudge is then getting stabbed in the back while doing so.

I think that every Representative, Senator, and Governor from a "taker" state should have to make public request and obeisance to the representatives of "giver" states on national television right after the State of Union or their state doesn't get any Federal money. It's just words, but too many people think that things "magically" appear in their states with no thought to what is actually happening.

> 3. Arguably much of the success of the United States comes from the cohesion between the states, hence the name. To leave the United States undermines its very existence.

Agreed. But how many times does it take cousin Clem having an accident with a gun before you decide it's safer to just not be around him?

> Am I missing something?

Yes, it won't be a vote that triggers CalExit--Californians really don't want to leave, by and large.

It will the Feds showing up and shooting some white people for <reasons> and then having a ham-fisted response that causes it.

If it were anyone other than Trump in the White House, I wouldn't worry about this happening. Sadly, this bunch look more than incompetent enough to trigger it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com