Tag: billionaires

I Want to Make a Case for New England Seceding From the “United” States

A thing I think about sometimes. Maybe you do too?

I sometimes fantasize about our northeastern states seceding from the Union (capitalized for clarity and for the sake of divorcing the word from certain specific meanings) because I no longer feel that the government as constituted in Washington DC represents the interests of its citizens. It would be easy enough to claim that the problem is Stinky Don and his minions, but the issues run deeper, and are unlikely to be resolved by replacing him as head of state.

It would be hard. Crashing out comes with damage. Along with the risks, there would be some rewards, most having to do with not having to listen to and work within the whims of the cadre of corrupt billionaires who currently run too much of our lives. As such, this might not be my last post about this. I think about national divorce a bunch.

There are a number of areas of governance we would have to consider here: economics/feeding ourselves, defending ourselves/relations with our neighbors, living by the social contract/civic policy, and the thousand unknowns of going it alone seem to me to be the basics.

This map is from the US Geological Survey.

One thing I often hear talked about is that New England states are “donor states.” In truth, three New England states qualify as donor states, and three of our number are recipient states. Massachusetts and Connecticut consistently pay more in taxes than we recieve in benefits, New Hampshire is usually a donor state, though not always because they’re close to the line between donor and recipient always. Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island are consistently recipient states.

The thing to remember here is that states don’t pay federal taxes, individuals do. Massachusetts and Connecticut (and to a lesser extent, southern New Hampshire) are where the highest concentrations of wealth are. Every possible solution to the donor/recipient state disparity that I’ve heard looks like bad policy, including some “fixes” that are pure regressive taxation.

This is not something that should be thought of in making the case for secession. Honestly, the fact that the first place I went to in thinking about this is an example of right-wing framing is surprising to me, now that I’ve investigated a little bit. To get to the goal of a free New England, there’s clearly some reflection and self-deprogramming that needs to happen.

Perhaps the main reason I want to cut away from the rest of the country is that this region, in self-rule, would be more humanist and more left-leaning. A smaller system would be more likely to support the people of that system. It would be our responsibility to realign away from sheer wealth creation to making a local system of governance that respects and supports individuals in a way that the current federal government has almost completely abdicated from.

Sorry this post is so random. There’s a ton to think about here, and I will have to do a bunch of digging to even scratch the surface of how this massive historical shift could even begin to be considered. I will make little swipes at this from time to time… more so if readers of this blog show interest, of course. Does anybody else around here sometimes imagine a social-democratic New England, standing proud and free? Let me know in the comments.

Please consider liking and commenting on this post. Subscribe if you can – it costs you nothing (you no longer have to have a wordpress account to like or comment) and clicking on the buttons helps this site thrive! Also, do be a dear and share this post with those you know who might appreciate it!

More Controversial Beliefs: I am a Libertarian Socialist

If you’re going to categorize my politics, this is the stuff I believe society should be organized around.

I am a libertarian socialist. I believe that societies should be organized at as close to ground level as they can possibly be. Centralized power is anathema to human happiness.

In fact, Capitalism never considers the need for people to be whole, healthy, and happy a priority at all. One only has to look at the current state of the world to see that this is so.

Capitalism is a good servant but a poor master. Commerce and trade offer crucial support to a community, but they must be held in check, and carefully managed with the larger context of sustainability and human happiness in mind.

Large corporations should not be allowed, and capitalists should not be allowed to earn more than 50 times the basic income rate, which should be defined in relation to how much it takes to meet basic necessities such as enough good, nutritious food, adequate housing, all other basic expenses met, and enough extra money to save against emergencies and for education and amusement.

Billionaires in general should not exist. I agree with the idea that if you somehow manage to amass a billion dollars, everything over 900 million of those dollars should be taxed at a marginal rate of 100%.

Centralized power should be avoided at all costs. Large concerns should be organized by cooperating communities and/or worker’s coöps. Large concentrations of power cause suffering in the best circumstances. Power should be balanced and distributed into as many different hands as possible. People caught abusing their power should have it taken away.

Administrative tasks should be handled on the most local and small level possible, and larger projects should be organized across boundaries between communities if necessary. Once projects of a larger size are completed, the authorities that created them should be either disbanded or minimized in size to conduct reasonable maintenance of any particular ongoing project. Such authorities should be under the aegis of all impacted communities.

Communities themselves should be organized along two axes: geography and affinity. Society should be as free as it can be made to be, but people should be able to organize based on what they need, like, and want as well as where they exist on the map. Communities should have different sizes and shapes and should have porous borders in some ways and firm ones in others. The power of the collective will always outstrip the power of any individual. By the same token, the power of the collective should only be exercised out of necessity.

There is more to say on these topics, and at some point, I may come back to this.

Please consider liking and commenting on this post. Subscribe if you can – it costs you nothing and helps this site thrive – and share this post with those you know who might appreciate it.