this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
157 points (92.0% liked)

Asklemmy

48933 readers
1038 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 15 points 7 hours ago

No. Imagining an independent future for any state (including California and Texas) is pure cope. The states are so interdependent that attempting to secede would be ruinous for the state in question.

The only exceptions I can think of are Alaska and Hawaii, which might be able to survive if they found another country to keep them supplied and economically connected.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 hours ago

Wouldn't Texas be at the top of the list of states most likely to exit?

[–] pleasegoaway@lemm.ee 5 points 5 hours ago

I like the idea of it, but California is a cash cow and the US would never let that cash cow get away.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

What you are proposing would start a North American war deadlier than any that has ever been seen. Everyone thought Texas was dumb for talking about secession, but now that other states don’t want to be part of the union, people act like it is a serious idea. It isn’t. Never has been.

In the words of Ben Franklin, β€œwe must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

[–] psychadlligoat@piefed.social 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone knew Texas talking about it was dumb because they're not self sufficient

California actually is, and if we're hated by the rest of the country anyway, we'll just go ahead and leave. Let the rest states have fun paying for shit without us

Define self sufficient.

California is not self sufficient in my opinion. They may have a lot of money, but they rely heavily on interstate commerce and trade routes for their prosperity. Taxes and cost of living are already high, and those things would explode if cut off from trade. The federal government won’t hesitate to use their leverage to keep other countries from supporting the newly declared independence of California.

Texas is not self sufficient either, but I’m not advocating for their secession.

Put simply, we need fewer borders, not more of them. Any state that thinks they can take their money and run will find themselves brutalized by the federal government, taxed to oblivion by neighboring states, and experiencing an exodus of companies who are based there. It is the path to destruction, not liberation.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago

New England. Maybe with NY, you could have New New.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Sure? Balkanization seems like a good way to speed up the process of the Empire collapsing.

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 hours ago

plus there is the bonus of schadenfreunde, since they always want to balkanize countries that happen to stand in their path.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 hours ago

Absolutely

  • Sincerely, someone from the EU
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago

Shit's gonna look like the Holy Roman Empire a decade from now...

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 hours ago (11 children)

Do states even have a legal way to secede?

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

To take this in a different direction, legal or not (considering the "higher power" generally gets to define what is and isn't legal and might do so for its own benefit rather than in the best interest of everyone, if there even is such a thing), how can it be determined if a subset of a power structure breaking away from that power structure is a good thing or bad thing? What arguments other than "we'll use force" are there to support a region needing to remain under the thumb of a power they no longer wish to serve?

[–] Nojustice@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

See: American civil war

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't have a way to legally secede from Britain

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

But this time there would be no ocean between the two sides.

No but there's no law against expelling a state from the union. Kind of a reverse secession if you can piss trump off enough for him to actually do it (no law saying that only Congress can expel them, so it would go to the courts).

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Enshined in law, so that state can unilateraly decide to secede and federal govt must accept it.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Nope. The south already tried that.

If you want to gain independence, you have to fight the federal government's monopoly on violence. At its core, that's how all law is backed up. Two things you need to be a country. First, the ability to backup your independence with force. Second, the acknowledgement of the international community and their willingness to sign treaties with you. Sealand doesn't have any issues defending their "independence", but no one has signed a treaty with them for instance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] VampirePenguin@midwest.social 4 points 11 hours ago

No. We'd be overrun by federal troops and decimated within a week. If we could secede peacefully? We (Wisconsin) would probably need an alliance with Minnesota and Michigan to survive.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 hours ago

CA should be split into two.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

If the Union completely dissolved and each state had to function as nation, it would be a massive boom for the oligarchs. They already have more money than most states.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

If just my state left, and I could leave to another state, that would be pretty good. Two Republican senators gone, roughly 15 net house reps gone, and an influx of dem refugees like me into neighboring states.

Texas could legit try to make a go of it as an independent nation. It would be a disaster for my family though.

[–] veganbtw@lemmy.ml 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I support balkanizing the US

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

It worked wonderfully for the actual Balkans and the Caucasus region

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

As a US citizen and Oregon resident, absolutely.

But I don't honestly foresee it being possible or happening.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί