/liberty/ - Liberty

Gold, Property Rights, and Physical Removal

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

CAPTCHA
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

Uncommon Time Winter Stream

Interboard /christmas/ Event has Begun!
Come celebrate Christmas with us here


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(105.69 KB 330x450 calexitwhen.png)

Secession Anonymous 07/13/2020 (Mon) 22:09:14 Id: 73b486 No. 3346
I feel like secession could be used a lot more effectively by libertarians. One thing that I find very interesting is how Prince Hans Adam III used secession as a bargaining chip. “Empower the monarchy, in exchange, I will give you rights to secede.” I feel like this strategy should be copied everywhere, and there’s one in particular I’m thinking of. There are a lot of U.S. states that have insanely high debt loads. What if we encouraged the following political strategy: >State A has a high debt load. >Encourage state A to REALLY ramp up its deficit (or just leave them to their doom—like California and Illlinois). Bla bla, something Keynesian multiplier, blabla, MMT yadda yadda >Within short order, A can not make payments. >A tries to restructure payments, it goes to the courts, of course the court says, “Uh, the state constitution requires payment,” the state has to increase tax rates in a panic. >People leave A, tax revenues decrease precipitously despite the tax hikes. A vicious spiral downward begins. >A argues it’s stuck. Under court order it can’t even walk away from the debt. >Before they start saying “The federal government has to assume our debts to save us!” A petition for a different plan is submitted… >“There’s a way around your court order. Get rid of, and then immediately redeclare A’s statehood. Because “New A” is not the same as “Old A,” then “New A” doesn’t have to assume the debts.” Of course, one DOES NOT mention the obvious thing that would happen, which is… >The moment the statehood is abolished, and is about to be redeclared, politicians at the state and federal level begin stroking their chins, “ACTUALLY, given what just happened, I think it makes sense to redistrict A to make it more ‘democratic’ and ‘in line with the popular vote.’” >Of course politicians at the federal level will agree, because they get to redraw the state’s boundaries and potentially get more senators for their party. You can argue whether that’s better or worse in the short term, but in the long term, there are large political bodies that have just been decentralized a bit more bois. >Seeing this has just happened, state bond rates SPIKE overnight, causing those with deficits and already large interest payments to panic. Suddenly, it’s not just A that’s been running huge deficits that’s about to default, it’s B, C, D, E, and F. >Loads of ridiculously large states get broken up. >Pop champagne corks when California is the bubble that bursts.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply