NATIONAL California Bans State Travel To Florida And 4 Other States
- Thread starter slant
- Start date
- MBTI
- None
So you think that dividing based on beliefs makes more sense than legislation like this where states try to influence the laws of others states?
Personally I think it's inevitable that states try to influence one another like this, I just think it's an interesting paradox because the reason the USA was initially split into states (territories) was because it is such a large territory and it's difficult to have the same laws for the entire region when the dry state of Arizona has different water needs than say swampy Florida. So it's interesting to see states put pressure on one another in a political way through their own laws like that.
- MBTI
- None
I'm particularly interested in @Pin 's take on this given his interest in law and government. This thread is really less about the actual law that's being passed and more about the concept of a state passing this type of law that impacts another state. I know it's not the first of it's kind but reading this article made me think about it for the first time.
Maybe @Pin will have any other examples of this. In fact if anyone can think of similar laws that have been passed feel free to bring it up.
Is there a name for this type of law? Specifically, a law that is passed to "punish" other states or attempt to influence them.
I know internationally we have sanctions and tariffs, and I suppose on a state level there are taxes on other states goods.
Maybe @Pin will have any other examples of this. In fact if anyone can think of similar laws that have been passed feel free to bring it up.
Is there a name for this type of law? Specifically, a law that is passed to "punish" other states or attempt to influence them.
I know internationally we have sanctions and tariffs, and I suppose on a state level there are taxes on other states goods.
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
This is the kind of thing different countries do to one another. I think that the ideological divide has grown so vast splitting up is regrettably, inevitable. And it won't be peaceful. Maybe in our lifetimes or maybe not far beyond that.
- MBTI
- None
I see your point, but what I wonder if part of it if just the sheer size of the country. If you look at Europe none of those countries are the size of the USA. Russia is pretty big but most of the space they occupy isn't inhabited. Things are definitely polarized but I wonder if it was always that way and that media has put it under the magnifying glass. I think it's hard to have a unified identity with such a massive area of land in general.
Thinking back historically the wild west was super different culturally at the time then like the east coast original colonies and they didn't really have a way to get info back and forth quickly but just what their thoughts are concerns about were different. The east was well established and the west they were trying to fight the native Americans and create life in really desert harsh areas.
Does what I'm saying make sense or do you see it differently?
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
I do think media and the internet have amplified differences. So much so that we can't even agree on who won national elections anymore. I just think at the core there's a huge divide and states will only continue to deepen it with this sort of thing. I doubt CA doing this will impact these states much and I doubt it will cause them to change their legislation. It's a signal that CA is different and stands apart ideologically and culturally from those states.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Nope. I'm not in favor of these restrictions. Politically, it doesn't make sense. It's a "stick your head in the sand" solution that solves nothing and causes isolation and polarization.
Plus, let's reverse it. Is it OK for conservative states to ban state-funded travel to progressive states or will/is that called "fascism"? Rules need to work for everyone.
I often think we should divide into two different countries, as @acd suggested, but I can't make it work (in my head) in a logical way with resources, military, nuclear weapon management, the logistics of people moving to one country or the other, or where the boundaries should fall. Then, we'll just have wars with each other because separating won't cause us to live in peace as neighbors. It would be a mess, but it also seems like the only solution.
Plus, let's reverse it. Is it OK for conservative states to ban state-funded travel to progressive states or will/is that called "fascism"? Rules need to work for everyone.
I often think we should divide into two different countries, as @acd suggested, but I can't make it work (in my head) in a logical way with resources, military, nuclear weapon management, the logistics of people moving to one country or the other, or where the boundaries should fall. Then, we'll just have wars with each other because separating won't cause us to live in peace as neighbors. It would be a mess, but it also seems like the only solution.
- MBTI
- None
Oh definitely.
Still not sure that it's gotten worse, maybe we just had a period where it wasn't as bad. I read a lot about Andrew Jackson's election and it was crazy. He lost the first time to Adams and like Trump did petitioned that the election had been corrupt yada yada and the next election he won. He got r
Everyone thinks politicians used to be civil but Adams actually accused Jackson of cannibalism and a slave trader and publicly denounced Jackson's mother as being a prostitute so I kinda feel like America has a history of ridiculous shit.
That doesn't change the fact that we are polarized, though. Very true. I also agree with the virtue signaling. Conservatives do that too I just can't think of any examples right now, probably something gun related.
Do you know of any thoughts or plans that have been laid out about how the country would split if it did? Are we talking state by state or like some sort of league of states that are are one country? That would be pretty weird if you had to drive through the other county to get to the other part of your county if they split not necessarily geographically next to one another. @Asa kinda touches on this as well so interested in what she has to say too
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
The map for it would be very strange. You'd have to travel through red country to get to blue country and then there would be little islands in between (like Illinois). Then you might have states split themselves from red and blue areas. Someone not long ago running for governor in IL suggested splitting into 3 states. I've heard similar ideas for CA. It seems to be a mostly urban/rural divide. Or more populated areas seem to be more democratic. I've seen maps where the US is all red. But that's geographically. Land doesn't vote. It's the more populated areas that tend to vote democrat. How do you split that up?
If Facebook and Twitter were around for Adams and Jackson we'd have probably been doomed much sooner lol.
Last edited:
Roses In The Vineyard
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
People have warned that something such as this would come along at some point or another for many years never knowing as to exactly as to why only to be written off as crackpots ect yet here we are. Gradually things are going to get where there will be some level of balkanization with parts of the country drifting away from each other while the federal government maintains some control at least for some years though I don't see there being a civil war just a weakening of the country as a whole.
- MBTI
- None
Well, I think it's because it's portrayed as some dramatic civil war that's going to occur and like you say realistically that's not what would actually happen. Most of the time when that topic is brought up it's a form of fear mongering to show how bad whatever side of the political fence they're talking about is. It's largely hyperbolic and a realistic conversation is rarely conducted.
acd
Well-known member
- MBTI
- infp
- Enneagram
- 9w8 sp/sx
I would have thought another civil war crazy too..I'm fact, I remember disagreeing with Event Horizon years ago about that. But after seeing people storm the capitol because there's a persistent belief that the election was stolen it doesn't seem so crazy to me anymore. It does look like we are splintering further and further apart ideologically in crucial areas; legitimacy of our institutions, human rights, and hyper partisanism. And it's exacerbated by our toxic partisan media and every dumbass with a conspiracy theory on the internet. Disinformation contributes to the divide.
Or perhaps balkanization it is. I just don't think I see things remaining peaceful on this path.
Or perhaps balkanization it is. I just don't think I see things remaining peaceful on this path.
Last edited:
o2b
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
Just an fyi that the states are (or at least were) nations. When Cornwallis surrendered, he did so 13 times, one for each colony. The Constitution is a pact between the newly created federal government and the separate nations (states).
I am unsure how I feel about this law since it is only for state funded travel. If it was for all travel, I would be against it.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed
It seems to me government has only one purpose, to protect the individual's God-given unalienable rights. For a nation to deprive its people from traveling to specified places seems to me a curbing of the right to travel freely, without encumbrance.
It is another matter, but government has encroached on our rights for a long time. As one example, allodial title of property was held sacred. But, can anyone purchase property without being subject to a lien (realizing taxation is a lien)?
I am unsure how I feel about this law since it is only for state funded travel. If it was for all travel, I would be against it.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed
It seems to me government has only one purpose, to protect the individual's God-given unalienable rights. For a nation to deprive its people from traveling to specified places seems to me a curbing of the right to travel freely, without encumbrance.
It is another matter, but government has encroached on our rights for a long time. As one example, allodial title of property was held sacred. But, can anyone purchase property without being subject to a lien (realizing taxation is a lien)?
Sloe Djinn
Idiot with Internet Access.
- MBTI
- ISFP
- Enneagram
- 6w7
Beside the point, why’s the state (taxpayers) funding non-essential travel anyway? Ban non-essential state funded travel everywhere.
Roses In The Vineyard
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
Generally people really don't care anymore only seeing their side as being right while there is very little attempt to find the middle ground. It doesn't help that for a lot of this country not having much say when so much on a national level is decided by the big cities that are run by shit bags who turn their cities into huge slums that make even the third world look somewhat livable.
John K
Donor
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5W4 549
Is the idealogical polarisation really that bad in the USA? It's maybe significant that when you had a common enemy all these issues lay buried and your country seemed very united for more than 50 years - first in WW2, and then in the Cold War. When the Soviet Union folded, some focus seemed to be lost in the US national spirit to my mind, which is a great shame because the world can do without the necessity of such stand-offs as a way to achieve national unity.
An obvious example of a large country splitting into separate states is India after independence. That happened along religious grounds, and both those and the geographical areas concerned were rather better defined than could be possible in the US. Pakistan was a bit of a disaster subsequently, created as it was in two geographically separate bits with Hindu India in between - it was inevitable that it would split into smaller independent states like it did when Bangladesh secedeed. If the US did split it seems likely that there would be profound external consequences, because I can't see how such states could compete effectively against the challenge that China is posing to Western democratic ideology - they would no longer be able to lead the West ideologically like the US does at the moment. Unlike the Soviets, China is very pragmatic in it's present form, and clearly intends to lead some form of world hegemony in the long run. based as much on economic as military influence. It's combination of totalitarian stability with economic success, technical innovation and increasing material well-being for its people mean that it's going to be a very different competitor to anything we have encountered for a very long time. I suspect that the long term realities of this challenge mean that severe political instability in the US is as likely to lead to some form of dictatorship, supported by your military, as it is to the creation of stable, independent secessionary states. If the US does fall apart, then within a few decades it will probably be irrelevant in the face of the economic and political competition from the Orient, unless like with India, the majority of the present USA and its resources were gathered up into a very large proportion of the present state, something like India is in relation to Pakistan. It is very likely though that there would be chaos, like happened in the Soviet Union when it split apart - and to this day, Russia has been unable to fully regain it's position, influence and credibility in the rest of the world.
An obvious example of a large country splitting into separate states is India after independence. That happened along religious grounds, and both those and the geographical areas concerned were rather better defined than could be possible in the US. Pakistan was a bit of a disaster subsequently, created as it was in two geographically separate bits with Hindu India in between - it was inevitable that it would split into smaller independent states like it did when Bangladesh secedeed. If the US did split it seems likely that there would be profound external consequences, because I can't see how such states could compete effectively against the challenge that China is posing to Western democratic ideology - they would no longer be able to lead the West ideologically like the US does at the moment. Unlike the Soviets, China is very pragmatic in it's present form, and clearly intends to lead some form of world hegemony in the long run. based as much on economic as military influence. It's combination of totalitarian stability with economic success, technical innovation and increasing material well-being for its people mean that it's going to be a very different competitor to anything we have encountered for a very long time. I suspect that the long term realities of this challenge mean that severe political instability in the US is as likely to lead to some form of dictatorship, supported by your military, as it is to the creation of stable, independent secessionary states. If the US does fall apart, then within a few decades it will probably be irrelevant in the face of the economic and political competition from the Orient, unless like with India, the majority of the present USA and its resources were gathered up into a very large proportion of the present state, something like India is in relation to Pakistan. It is very likely though that there would be chaos, like happened in the Soviet Union when it split apart - and to this day, Russia has been unable to fully regain it's position, influence and credibility in the rest of the world.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Nope
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 2w1
Rhetorical and trying to be funny: how united are the states of America?
Interesting take but the very threat of China is a good reason as to why the U.S. most likely won't split. It's not really that easy to talk about establishing sovereignty when a large chunk of U.S. stability is on its military ammo in the face of a growing hegemon. However China I think has militarily laid low on its hegemonic tendencies. While she didn't back out, she released some of the pressure on ASEAN states when relations with the region started stabilizing and by stabilizing, I mean being more economically leaning toward the east rather than the west. One of China's interesting strategies has been to empower or pressure Asian states into their influence. This solidifies their grasp on a huge chunk of the economy. In fact, China has already effectively dominated the world economy. One of the things that the U.S. has going for it is its military power. If they disintegrate based on ideology, they're going to have a pact on the wielding of that power much like NATO. Otherwise you're right, the states won't hold up to the world ranking order too soon if they did disintegrate. Many American cities are already facing real threats to their respective sustainability as far as tangible resources are concerned. What America most probably needs is a unifying leadership with excellent diplomatic international relations. Then again, don't all *countries need that? Lol
Last edited: