ha its not the implementation of a fascist police state, its 'ai' that did it for ya?!
oook
I kind of doubt an independent Texas would be any less of a fascist police state.
oh, i agree wholeheartedly.. thats where the current federal administration is getting a lot of their terrible ideas.
i think what op is referring to is a general 'but my states rights' even though the original idea was 'i want my state to have the right to be an absolutely racist piece of shit'.
They are certianly trying to beat the rest of the States to 1862 levels of fascism.
Texas has been a fascist state practically since its inception.
A big part of the "Texit" movement finds its legs as soon as the presidency changes to an insufficiently fascist bureaucrat.
That scares the hell out of me too.
I just happened to read about the bill and had a thought and posted it.
~~I guess I'll work on considering you and being more of a perfectionist. Lemmy needs that. There's too much content as there is. /s~~
Edit: okay I get I was poking back pretty hard. Definitely a bit of a lash out. Sorry.
People on the internet are prone to criticize, it's okay to have gained an appreciation for the idea of states rights vs federalism from a slightly lower impact or more niche issue rather than one of the huge ones.
Its always a tradeoff both ways. The more rights the states have independent from the federal government, the harder it can be to get everyone on the same page about doing good things, but it's also a lot easier to independently build good things when the trend nationally is garbage.
The question is what compromise feels right to you, and personally I can respect and empathize with a number of positions on the topic. There's a reason the framers (fallible as they were) debated this architectural question so much- it really changes the shape of what exactly the federal government is.
Seceding was never wrong per se, the issue is the 'why'. Seceding for slavery is still an asshole move.
Seceding is a problem on its face, because it functionally strips citizenship from dissenting residents.
The slavery fight was an extension of this problem, as emancipation grants an individual full citizenship.
What we ultimately need is a global citizenship that doesn't bottle any population cohort up in a single territory or deny civil rights based on place of birth. Secession functionally moves us away from universal human liberty.
What if the state you secede from also strips citizen rights from dissenting residents?
Then you're fucked coming and going, and what you need is an internationalist revolution.
(Disclaimer slavery bad, I think I haven't spend enough time saying that in this post)
On the topic of secession and global citizenship: As an anarchist I disagree that secession is inherently problematic. It all depends on how governance works in the state. Leaving could make a lot of sense with a monarchy for example.
I think a central authority regulating global citizenship could work out. But to me centralization means having one big point of failure. Less people to bribe to make sweeping changes. (Ergo Trump)
If there isnt a centralized authority then 'global citizenship' would mean different things in different states, so it wouldn't give everyone the same rights, and may not be followed at all. I can't imagine coordinating the whole world, but maybe I'm not optimistic enough.
It all depends on how governance works in the state. Leaving could make a lot of sense with a monarchy for example.
Rejecting the authority of a monarch is very different than putting up hard borders along an arbitrary line of demarcation and reinforcing residency by birthright.
Secession, in this instance, affirms the rights of the monarch at a distance.
I think a central authority regulating global citizenship could work out. But to me centralization means having one big point of failure.
The legal concept of global citizenship does not require a single capital city. Just look at the EU. No one country rules all of Europe. No one politician dictates residency. You have a confederacy of democratic(ish) states operating under a single rule of law.
This is the principle of Constitutional governance. Power isn't embodied in an individual, it is a social contract between all residents.
I can’t imagine coordinating the whole world, but maybe I’m not optimistic enough.
We have a piecemeal arrangement via the old NATO alliance and the various international trade agreements. You can travel without visas between various states. You can conduct business without doing more than declaring what that business entails. You can change residency (temporarily) with minimal hassle to pursue work or education.
We have a number of frameworks already in effect. The OG neoliberal dream was to expand that system globally.
Obviously it didn't work. But more because neoliberalism valued trade over civil rights and private profit over public prosperity.
Rejecting the authority of a monarch is very different than putting up hard borders along an arbitrary line of demarcation and reinforcing residency by birthright.
I'd say progress is progress, even if it isn't perfect. Large scale coordination is more difficult than smaller scale stuff.
Secession, in this instance, affirms the rights of the monarch at a distance.
I can see this, but it also relives the residents that succeeded. Gives them a safer place to build infrastructure.
Obviously it didn't work. But more because neoliberalism valued trade over civil rights and private profit over public prosperity.
Yeah that kinda stuff is my lack of optimism. If inegalitarian systems come together to decide on law for the world, then we may not get good laws.
I think there is a lot of local work to do before I am confident in a global order. If we had systems that represent us well, then combining them to set global standards would rock.
This is the principle of Constitutional governance. Power isn't embodied in an individual, it is a social contract between all residents.
Inequality is on the rise globally, and has been for a few decades. So that social contract is being negotiated by parties on increasingly uneven ground. Therefore this statement is not calming to me. Lots of people agree to bad deals every day.
Edit: BTW thanks for sharing your views, I know I can sound kinda spicy at times when debating. We both obviously just want folks to have comfortable lives.
I’d say progress is progress, even if it isn’t perfect
I would not call splitting the baby progress. Vietnam, for instance, wasn't liberated through division. It had to be reunited before either half was free from civil war. Same with Germany. Or Korea, for that matter.
But that's just my perspective
Yeah totally. Do you think your average modern Texan secessionist would be pro-slavery? I imagined they were just hard core status quo preserving capitalists (so slavery light I'll admit).
What proportion of Texan's incarcerated population is forced to labour for next to no salary again? There's at least one US state—Virginia (312)—whose official title for prisoners is "Slave of the State". Do you think the other southern states are much more progressive in their attitudes?
Hint: no. Alabama (390), Arkansas (574), Florida (377), Georgia (435), Mississippi (661), South Carolina (302), and Texas (452) also have de facto slavery of their prisoners: defined as mandatory labour for negligible to no wage, with strict penalties for non-participation.
So what are those numbers I've put after all the state names? Those are the incarceration rates per 100,000. Compare and contrast these with the US national average (which, remember, includes the high-rate states): 355. Isn't it mysterious that of the eight states with de facto incarcerated slavery six are over the national average, and three (Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas) have the highest incarceration rates in the country?
Slavery is alive and well in the USA, and Texas is one of its largest users thereof now. So yes, I think the average modern Texan secessionist would be pro-slavery … because they already are.
So... you're saying you want a slavery based economy??
I pass a billboard that advertises a Texit crypto coin. They claim no ties to government, but echo every exit reason possible that has been mentioned. The coin has grown from .10 to over a dollar in just a few months. They are trying to fund the exit process through dark money for sure.
That is a strange project. It makes me uneasy. Thanks for sharing.
From the website:
For Texas by Texans, TXC is a fast & inexpensive mineable blockchain-based cryptocurrency designed for generations of honest trade.
Lmao, I've not seen any crypto do anything like "honest trade". The main uses are rug pulls and drug purcheses from my understanding.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the west coast didn’t try to peel off, together. Texas is sticking around, for now.
I pray Cascadia peels away. But I know it will never happen. Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple? They're never going to let us leave in peace.
Keep them as a territory forever 😁
What does that have to do with their original reasoning? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_secession_movements
The wiki doesn't talk about who's funding the modern efforts.
i.e. Calexit, Albexit, Brexit, etc.
Yo that is curious. I see Russia pop up so much in reading about different secession movements.
I wish they weren't all right wing movements. When do the anarchist get to run the secession.
Well I have a vague understanding of it. I read through the Wiki and a lot of the reasoning in recent years seems to align
According to its website, the objective of the Texas Nationalist Movement is "the complete, total and unencumbered political, cultural and economic independence of Texas".
During the rally, many in the crowd began to chant "secede, secede", to which Perry remarked, "If Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?"
After US president Barack Obama won the 2012 US presidential election, bumper stickers and signs saying "secede" started to appear in Texas
Basically: we don't like what's going on with the federal government and would like to not be bound by them.
I mean I generally disagree with their specific politics, but I get wanting to leave when you feel bound up / forced to do things that you think near no one in your state would vote for.
I know I didn't touch on original reasoning, but I really only care about what's been going on recently. So I skipped to stuff in the last 25 years. I'm not trying to talk to folks from the past.
I wish Texas would get a move on, tbh.
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES (updated 01/22/25)
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities