Texas GOP Passes Resolution Declaring Biden ‘Not Legitimately Elected’

[TheCount]

So are you going to apply your "expulsion" policy to the anti-liberty right, too (along with the anti-liberty left)?

In his scenario, the anti-liberty right are in power. They aren't going to expel themselves.

It's your #2 but even more authoritarian than you suggested.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I didn't say anything about "neocons" - but your shuck-and-jive about how they are really just a "part of the left" (with which I don't disagree) only serves to beg the question.

So I'll repeat it (with emphasis added):

Of course I could. Why wouldn't I?

I'm not the one proposing the forcible "expulsion" of many millions of people with whom I disagree just for the sake of preventing a dysfunctional and necessarily increasingly authoritarian national polity from coming apart at the seams. (Just let it come apart - voluntary self-"expulsion"/separation FTW.)

The left and their fellow travelers will never allow peaceful separation, the Civil War proved that and things have only gotten worse.
Leave them in our territory or in proximity to our territory and the conflict will take place with us in a worse position to deal with it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The left and their fellow travelers will never allow peaceful separation, the Civil War proved that and things have only gotten worse.

You mean like the commies "never allow[ed]" the Soviet Union to collapse and fall apart with astoundingly little violence and bloodshed? You mean like that? (And the American Civil War doesn't "prove" any such thing - it occurred over a century-and-a-half ago, and the principals who prosecuted it are all long dead and gone.)

But in any case, I have already clearly and explicitly accounted for the possibility of such violence in scenario (3):

[...] Broadly speaking, those outcomes are:

(1) left-socialist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the right-fascist ones)
(2) right-fascist authoritarianism that actively represses opposing factions (including but not limited to the left-socialist ones)
(3) the political collapse and breakup of the previously-existing regime (by way of either relatively peaceful "national divorce" or relatively violent "civil war")​

Leave them in our territory or in proximity to our territory and the conflict will take place with us in a worse position to deal with it.

Also, I notice you still haven't answered my question.

I won't bother asking it a third time, as I think at this point we all know what the answer is.

I am curious about something else, though: just how do you propose to forcibly expel those millions of "the left and their fellow travelers" without engaging in the very "civil war" you say those people need to be expelled in order to avoid or prevent?

Whatever the details of however that might be accomplished - if it is even possible at all - it will require (and if successful, result in) the implementation of scenario (2) - QED. And for what possible purpose? Just so the continued existence of a severely dysfunctional and increasingly authoritarian federal government - one that clearly no longer serves the principles and ideals it was allegedly created to uphold and protect - can be preserved and maintained at its present scale and scope? Why?

 

[TheTexan]

You mean like the commies "never allow[ed]" the Soviet Union to collapse and fall apart with astoundingly little violence and bloodshed? You mean like that? (And the American Civil War doesn't "prove" any such thing - it occurred over a century-and-a-half ago, and the principals who prosecuted it are all long dead and gone.)

But in any case, I have already clearly and explicitly accounted for the possibility of such violence in scenario (3):

​

Also, I notice you still haven't answered my question.

I won't bother asking it a third time, as I think at this point we all know what the answer is.

I am curious about something else, though: just how do propose to forcibly expel those millions of "the left and their fellow travelers" without engaging in the very "civil war" you say those people need to be expelled in order to avoid or prevent?

Whatever the details of how that might be accomplished - if it is even possible at all - it will require (and if successful, result in) the implementation of scenario (2) - QED. And for what possible purpose? Just so the continued existence of a severely dysfunctional and increasingly authoritarian federal government - one that clearly no longer serves the principles and ideals it was allegedly created to uphold and protect - can be preserved and maintained at its present scale and scope? Why?

I think his overarching point is, as long the Leftists are in geographic proximity, they will never cease to pursue aggression against us. Which by itself, is not an invalid point.

Of course, there are other ways of handling it, than shipping them off to Australia, or the moon, or whatever. Which would be a fantastic outcome though, if not of course, for the authoritarian regime that would presumably be required to get that job done.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think his overarching point is, as long the Leftists are in geographic proximity, they will never cease to pursue aggression against us. Which by itself, is not an invalid point.

Of course. As far as that goes, I agree.

But my point is that they are never not going to be in geographic proximity.

The question is whether they are permitted to be in "political" proximity. [1]

Secessionism is the answer to that question (as is barring them from holding any positions in the government, and ejecting them from office when and where they are discovered - as well as punishing them for any shenanigans they pulled or attempted to pull while they were there [2]).

Of course, there are other ways of handling it, than shipping them off to Australia, or the moon, or whatever. Which would be a fantastic outcome though, if not of course, for the authoritarian regime that would presumably be required to get that job done.

Indeed. But even setting aside the "authoritarian regime" angle, it isn't going to happen in a continent-spanning nation of a third of a billion people, if only as a matter of practical logistics.

Perhaps that might not be as intractable a problem on smaller scales - and to at least some degree, it might not even need to be forcible. In a prior post, I alluded to "voluntary self-'expulsion'" - and we are already seeing precursors of such a dynamic (the Free State Project, the exodus from California, the identitarian "travel advisories" for Florida, etc.).

"Our nation's growing ideological self-segregation is proceeding nicely." -- Michael Malice
​

[1] Wahsington, D.C., for example, is not at all in geographical proximity to most of the rest of the country - but, unfortunately, it is very much in close "political" proximity to it.

[2] The current governor of New Mexico is a prime candidate for such "tarring and feathering" before being "run out of town on a rail" (either metaphorically or literally, as you please).