Proposal for Southern California to become a new state

As much as the southern half would like to go it alone, it all comes down to water...
How much would the south loose if it split, it's a desert, all it's water comes from where?(not saying it's northern ca. but the pipes are)
Ain't gonna happen.
(thinking souther ca is red is funny, it's pink)

 

Quebec has been wanting provincial rights for forever now, and they aren't getting it anytime soon either. These sorts of ideas are silly.

 

South Jersey had the same idea when I lived there. At least South Jersey is recognized as a separate state by Rocky in the movies.

 

I nominate Hugh Hefner to be Governor of Southern California

 

California could be split up into at least 4 areas. They would be Southern California, Inland California, North Coastal California, and Jefferson. They could then form the United States of California, which would secede from the US of A.

Coastal Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia would certainly be welcome to join us. Nevada should probably be included, just to keep all the gambling money inside the country. Baja California is a question mark, but it would save a lot of money if we just admitted that it is part of the country.

 

I don't see why modern Californians need to be bound to the political expediencies of 150 years ago. And I don't understand how anyone can think you can have a democracy without self-determination. I say let them do whatever they want.

 

Dumb idea by dumb people, never understand why people that should have an education, act like complete idiots. First, its a waste of time, because it would require way to many obstacles that, not the least of which would be for a statewide vote, and the rest of the state won't allow a split.

 

Never confuse education with wisdom. Examples abound where people have been educated beyond their intelligence.
As much as the idea of SOCAL being a separate state is an intellectually interesting discussion, bringing it up for a state vote will hardly close the issue. Cali has a long tradition of ignoring statewide referendums.
Self determination is indeed a bedrock of democracy, but the United States is not quite a democracy. It's close...but I think the pointy headed intellectuals say that it's a representative republic of semi independent (VERY semi sometimes!) states.
Example: Presidential Elections.

It's an interesting discussion, but it will/can never happen.

 

Entrenched powers always oppose political splits. Minorities often want to separate from what they perceive as oppression. The Civil War is an example. The Quebecois (some of them) want Quebec to be an independent country, but they always loose the referendums. ETA wants the Basque Country to separate from Spain, and Spain will not permit a referendum, though a Basque couple I was with on a week-long hiking trip through Galecia told me the majority of Basques did not want to separate (just their opinion, obviously, but they were speaking of their own province). Occasionally countries do split, but it usually takes a war.

If the entire Pacific coast were to try to separate, the U.S. would invade: it needs access to the sea. Even if Southern CA remained, it would limit access enough that the U.S. would invade. It would invade on principle, but if its access to the sea were interrupted, it would invade HARD!

That said, when I lived in North Dakota I always advocated that N.D. should secede from the Union and join Canada, since Canada is so much more civilized. Of course the U.S. would not permit that.

Texas had to have a war to separate from Mexico. And the U.S. went to war with Mexico to take the rest of the southwest from Mexico.

No politician will willingly permit any part of his territory to separate.

In the case of California splitting into several states (but remaining in the Union) it would be mainly the politicians in Sacramento who would oppose it, but there would also be opposition from other states, since the additional senators for the new states would change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. In antebellum America, whenever new states were admitted to the union they had to be admitted in pairs: one slave state and one free state, because otherwise one side or the other would block it because of the change in the power balance.

People out of power often want to separate. People in power never want to let them. And people in power, well, have more power.

As for the idea that democracy requires self-determination, there's never been democracy in America. Sure we have elections, and sure, much of the time those elections are honest. But only the rich and powerful or their minions have access to the ballot and to the media to make their voices heard. Democracy is a sham when only the rich, or people vetted by the rich, can run for office. So in the end there is no self-determination.

 

The idea of the US dissolving into smaller units isn't that far fetched. The USSR did exactly that, without war, and not that long ago.

The federal government is basically a drag on California. The feds are locked into squandering our money on wars of vengeance over the attacks on NYC and DC. Before that they picked the losers to support in a civil war in Viet Nam. Need I say anything about leadership in fighting pollution? The list goes on and on. California certainly has problems, but at least it's working on solving them. The feds just seem to think all problems come from outside, and our resources should be exported to protect what is becoming less and less.

As for the US of Calif, there is one problem I see. There's got to be some way to include LL Bean. Maybe Maine could join us, and Hawaii would be OK too.

 

Imagine the wars if the states were all independent countries!

 

Yeah, we kalifornian's are working hard at not squandering our taxpayer money.


“What you have now is you have a school system that says ‘We really don’t have enough room for everybody. We don’t have enough money to go around. But we’re going to not only accommodate the illegal students, we’re going to give them a cut-rate price.†- Brian Bilbray (R)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZxoZ4-DrSE&]YouTube - ‪Why Is California Providing Illegals With In-State Tuition and Aid?‬‏[/ame]

 

Maybe there would be more money if we taxed the states largest cash crop. We could also save a lot of money by not paying law enforcement to drive up the cost of it.

Legalize MJ. Once again, the feds are the biggest blockage to actually solving a problem.

 

Well it also doesn't help that California is paying for the welfare conservative state of Arizona.

 

From the linked article:

Jeff Stone, a Riverside County supervisor from Temecula, says he
wants 13 of the state's mostly conservative counties to break away
and become "South California".

The proposed South California would be made up of Fresno, Imperial,
Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Orange, San Bernardino,
San Diego, Tulare and Riverside counties. That totals about 13 million
people.



"Northern California" would include coastal counties all the way south
to and including Los Angeles County.

It would be more accurate to call the proposed new states "Eastern"
and "Western California."

 

But not that desirable, either. Few, if any, individual states are strong enough to stand on their own as a country. Creating a sovereign nation is a very risky and expensive process - more risk and expense is exactly what we don't need right now.

Just another short-sighted, selfish idea attempting to increase the influence of a political party at the expense of the country. Such insanity - temporary or otherwise - should not be taken seriously.

 

Except for San Diego County, I think that people in the rest of the state would approve of those counties leaving.

 

How about those counties just joining Arizona? Sounds like a win-win to me! Or as a separate state, it would be called West Arizona.

I agree that San Diego wouldn't go along with it.