- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: America will Balkanize or Die
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:14 pm to SCLibertarian
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:14 pm to SCLibertarian
Ah yes, the peaceful process of balkanization, which worked out wonderfully for everyone. The Balkan nations don't get along all that well with one another, and one of the major reasons for the fact that some of the regions were somewhat homogenous were the sheer number of population transfers that occurred between Russia, the Ottomans, and the Austrians.
If your view is that this country will peacefully balkanize, you are very naive. The country's demographics are much messier than the Balkan states. The new countries would almost certainly be weaker from a trade perspective, unless you can keep the economic aspects of the union intact (which you won't be able to). In addition, you would be inviting a ton more foreign influence, as the pattern in foreign relations is predicated now on increasing centralization, which allows states to streamline foreign and economic policy as one.
I don't think people are thinking carefully about what all this means. I'd suggest they are thinking emotionally actually.
If your view is that this country will peacefully balkanize, you are very naive. The country's demographics are much messier than the Balkan states. The new countries would almost certainly be weaker from a trade perspective, unless you can keep the economic aspects of the union intact (which you won't be able to). In addition, you would be inviting a ton more foreign influence, as the pattern in foreign relations is predicated now on increasing centralization, which allows states to streamline foreign and economic policy as one.
I don't think people are thinking carefully about what all this means. I'd suggest they are thinking emotionally actually.
2
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:16 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
The question is, how would you separate the country?
Eventually an AOC type will become President and shite will get real. Some states will form coalitions with the common agreement to defy the federal govt on some issues.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:16 pm to SCLibertarian
You could break off Cook County and the rest of Illinois would be deep red (outside of Champagne-Urbana).
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:17 pm to SCLibertarian
Racial separation. Everything else is pissing in the wind.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:17 pm to StrongSafety
quote:
see a lot of us fighting and spitting at cops and none of our black brothers and sisters doing the same.
You are very entertaining
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:20 pm to SCLibertarian
NYC,LA,Chicago,ATL.....
RIP
RIP
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:22 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
I'm drunk and trying to redpill lib family members. This should get interesting.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:22 pm to SCLibertarian
Who will control the Imperial Killing Machine?
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:24 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
We are too big and too populated for a small government
You have lost your ever loving fool arse mind!..... Government has two jobs.... infrastructure off the backs of taxpayers and protecting it's borders! The smaller the government the better!
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:26 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
do you see a path forward for any advocate of limited government in this country as it is currently constituted?
Check out the 5-4 SC ruling this week in favor of California’s restrictions on religious assembly. I’m not sure being “currently constituted” really matters if they’re going to spit on the Constitution.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:29 pm to SCLibertarian
A split America wouldn't be America anymore.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:31 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
If your view is that this country will peacefully balkanize, you are very naive.
That isn't my view. There would be violence.
quote:
The country's demographics are much messier than the Balkan states
Maybe racially, but not religiously or historically. The Croats are Catholic, the Serbs are Orthodox and the Bosnians are Muslim. Not to mention, you have the various conflicts of the HRE, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Romanovs and the Ottomans to add fuel to the fire. The crux of their conflict was sectarian and historical in nature, which to me is a much bigger flame than our current political differences.
quote:
The new countries would almost certainly be weaker from a trade perspective, unless you can keep the economic aspects of the union intact
How much longer can a country $22 trillion in debt sustain itself before a massive collapse happens anyway?
quote:
In addition, you would be inviting a ton more foreign influence, as the pattern in foreign relations is predicated now on increasing centralization, which allows states to streamline foreign and economic policy as one.
The potential for inviting more foreign influence is worth decreasing the influence of Washington DC. The American political establishment has revealed itself to be one of the biggest forces for evil on the planet.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:34 pm to Toomer Deplorable
The fact that monied interests are heavily interested in retaining the US in its current form is why a peaceful breakup is unlikely. The geopolitical considerations are real, and currently geopolitics favors large centralized organizations and countries over small ones.
There are absolutely foreign policy considerations that are to be made. The fact that foreign states use technology for security purposes, which is essentially the highest level of centralization for governments, means that other states, neighbors and competitors are likely to invest in similar technologies to bolster the security state. We know from defensive realism that states are distrustful of the intention of other states, which means they have no choice but to act in a way that would preserve, and also maximize their security. From the offensive realist perspective, governments that can organize and project power are at an immediate advantage with respect to rivals.
That the trend toward centralization with regards to new technologies is so great that a "Post-US" world would offer vastly different standards of living, trade agreements, and security arrangements than the world we live in now. By including a rival or rivals for geopolitical situations, you are inducing ever more security spirals and ever more centralization. Break-ups rarely if ever work out in a situation advantageous for everyone involved. They usually weaken states to the degree that they are more likely to be dominated, unless one state is much larger than the other.
There are absolutely foreign policy considerations that are to be made. The fact that foreign states use technology for security purposes, which is essentially the highest level of centralization for governments, means that other states, neighbors and competitors are likely to invest in similar technologies to bolster the security state. We know from defensive realism that states are distrustful of the intention of other states, which means they have no choice but to act in a way that would preserve, and also maximize their security. From the offensive realist perspective, governments that can organize and project power are at an immediate advantage with respect to rivals.
That the trend toward centralization with regards to new technologies is so great that a "Post-US" world would offer vastly different standards of living, trade agreements, and security arrangements than the world we live in now. By including a rival or rivals for geopolitical situations, you are inducing ever more security spirals and ever more centralization. Break-ups rarely if ever work out in a situation advantageous for everyone involved. They usually weaken states to the degree that they are more likely to be dominated, unless one state is much larger than the other.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:35 pm to Microtiger
quote:
A split America wouldn't be America anymore.
America hasn't been America since the Woodrow Wilson administration.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:46 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
That isn't my view. There would be violence.
I know, which is why I think it will lead to some absolutely terrible consequences.
quote:
Maybe racially, but not religiously or historically. The Croats are Catholic, the Serbs are Orthodox and the Bosnians are Muslim. Not to mention, you have the various conflicts of the HRE, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Romanovs and the Ottomans to add fuel to the fire. The crux of their conflict was sectarian and historical in nature, which to me is a much bigger flame than our current political differences.
You understand there were massive population transfers that gave those areas a semblance of homogenity, as well as shared history. Given that the largest population transfers in human history only amount to 12 million people, during The Partition, I'm skeptical that these new countries would represent demographics in a better way. As in, without population transfers, I don't see how these new nations suddenly deal with demographic challenges better.
quote:
How much longer can a country $22 trillion in debt sustain itself before a massive collapse happens anyway?
In the absence of major civil unrest, which precipitated hyperinflation situations in places like Zimbabwe, Post WWI Austria and Germany, probably a long time. US debt to GDP is much lower than other developed countries, and US financial instruments are still highly sought after for overseas reserves.
quote:
The potential for inviting more foreign influence is worth decreasing the influence of Washington DC. The American political establishment has revealed itself to be one of the biggest forces for evil on the planet.
First, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. Secondly, while I agree that the American political establishment, especially since 2003, has been terrible, I'm failing to see the benefit of losing economic hegemonic status. In addition, it isn't as though these new states wouldn't want centralizing apparatuses of their own. Like I've pointed out in my other post, each new rival creates a security dilemma of its own, which requires centralization that, at the minimum, matches that of rival states. States do not care, generally, about the people they represent, but are rather self-interested in the respect they want to survive. Thus, you'd be creating new centralizing apparatuses, which may or may not be able to handle specific challenges. Unfortunately, technology has allowed for a greater ease of centralization, and states pretty much everywhere will continue to use technology to those ends. I'm extremely skeptical of any attempts at decentralization actually working.
This post was edited on 5/30/20 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 5/30/20 at 8:56 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Ah yes, the peaceful process of balkanization, which worked out wonderfully for everyone. The Balkan nations don't get along all that well with one another, and one of the major reasons for the fact that some of the regions were somewhat homogenous were the sheer number of population transfers that occurred between Russia, the Ottomans, and the Austrians.
Yes. It really is a shame the Soviet Union collapsed. They could’ve held it all together.
'Murica: From Overstretch to Collapse
quote:
In less than three decades, a mere blink of the eye in historical terms, the United States has gone from the world’s sole superpower to a massive foundering wreck that is helpless before the coronavirus and intent on blaming the rest of the world for its own shortcomings....
Like other empires before it, the U.S. had allowed itself to become so over-extended after twenty-five years of “unipolarity” that strategists had their hands full keeping an increasingly rickety structure together. Nerves were on edge, which is why an ethnic uprising that might have been accommodated at an earlier stage of U.S. imperial development was no longer tolerable. Because the rebels had run afoul of U.S. imperial priorities, they constituted a fundamental threat and therefore had to be bulldozed out of the way. Except for one thing: the structure was so weak that each new bulldoze operation only made matters worse. Insurgents continued to hold their ground...
In the Middle East, the situation was so confused that U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar were channeling money and arms to ISIS as it rampaged through eastern Syria and northern Iraq and advanced on Baghdad. Thanks to the turmoil that U.S. policies were unleashing, millions of desperate refugees would soon make their way to Europe where they would spark a powerful nativist reaction that continues to this day. U.S. hegemony was turning into a nightmare....
Donald Trump rode a wave of discontent into the White House by promising to “drain the swamp” and bring the troops home. Conceivably, he could have done just that once he was in office – if, that is, he had been serious about downsizing U.S. imperialism and was capable of standing up to the CIA. But the “intelligence community” struck back by launching a classic destabilization campaign based on the theme of Russian collusion....
So the collapse intensified, which is why America is now such a helpless giant. A crazy man is at the helm, yet the best Democrats can do is put up a candidate suffering from the early stages of senile dementia, who may be a rapist to boot. No one knows how things will play out from this point on. But two things are clear. One is that the process did not start under Trump, while the other is that it will undoubtedly continue regardless of who wins in November. Once collapse sets in, it’s impossible to stop.
This post was edited on 5/30/20 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:03 pm to Toomer Deplorable
America's FP has already collapsed, through the myopia of the Bushes, the Clintons ineffectualness, and Obama's hopeless tinkering.
There is already a multi-polar world, but I don't know if the American FP elite understand that. Regardless, the collapse will be extremely slow, and may take upwards of hundreds of years.
There is already a multi-polar world, but I don't know if the American FP elite understand that. Regardless, the collapse will be extremely slow, and may take upwards of hundreds of years.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:12 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Regardless, the collapse will be extremely slow, and may take upwards of hundreds of years.
What remains of a market economy is all that is holding it together now. The last 2.5 months have shown how fragile we are in that regard. Venezuela is our future.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:21 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
What remains of a market economy is all that is holding it together now. The last 2.5 months have shown how fragile we are in that regard.
The political economy of the upper class is still highly invested in the country.
quote:
Venezuela is our future.
I disagree. We aren’t nearly as reliant on oil as Venezuela was and there is no country that can sanction us like we did to Venezuela, which exacerbated their crisis, along with regular mismanagement. I think it’s likely we will look like other post-hegemonic states like the UK and France.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 9:39 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
This country cannot survive if ruled by white-guilt SJW's and minorities. Furthermore, only a monstrous centralized state can rule 327 million people. We are too big and too populated for a small government. The question is, how would you separate the country?
The country is barely functioning as it is right now and it’s being run by Trump. It wasn’t much better under Obama. It’s obvious neither political party is looking out for the general population anymore, just large corporations and the 1%
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News