I agree. I would even say that in a way, the U.S. is already a bunch of separate countries. As other commenters have pointed out, splitting the U.S. would work best with a strong economic union...
I agree. I would even say that in a way, the U.S. is already a bunch of separate countries. As other commenters have pointed out, splitting the U.S. would work best with a strong economic union like the E.U. Add in a shared military, and you're already back to a federal government that is vaguely similar to what the federal government used to be (the exact period would depend on how strong of union). State governments are already important and powerful, but don't receive much attention.
I think a more reasonable yet still drastic solution that brings attention to state governments would be to merge states into larger ones, but still keep them all a part of the U.S. This could also make national representation more proportionate to population if the states are merged to be more equal in population. Even if a Alaska or Hawaii keep their two senators and now even more disproportionate population, it would become more of a weird quirk in how federal power is allotted, rather than large pool of over-represented states that make up a feasible path to the presidency. You could even argue that these states might warrant their extra representation due to their unique situations.
Merging states would also mean that states have the scale and resources to implement large programs (such as universal health care) if they wanted to.
It really depends what that would look like. Do we have open borders? I imagine you'd see the brain drain from conservative states exacerbated when liberal-leaning people there don't have a...
It really depends what that would look like. Do we have open borders? I imagine you'd see the brain drain from conservative states exacerbated when liberal-leaning people there don't have a federal government to save them on things like marriage equality.
Edit: and as people above has said it would be a disaster worse than Brexit is turning out to be.
Thought this was an interesting article. I don't agree with everything here, but the overall take that the US should be split into different countries is one that I do generally agree with....
Thought this was an interesting article. I don't agree with everything here, but the overall take that the US should be split into different countries is one that I do generally agree with. Interested in hearing what people around here think
He didn't really talk about it, but I'm guessing separate countries under an economic union like the EU. Separate countries, separate borders, separate markets sounds awful, and would cripple the...
He didn't really talk about it, but I'm guessing separate countries under an economic union like the EU. Separate countries, separate borders, separate markets sounds awful, and would cripple the very interconnected US economy.
But, that has its own issues. Like the EU would have, stronger economic countries and weak economic countries having the same currency just doesn't match. The US works as-is because a great deal of tax money from states like California flow into the Federal government, then flow back into other states.
Monetary policy is important; different countries with different economies have different needs for their currencies. A export-heavy state would prefer a weaker currency, for instance. You'd have issues like Greece and Germany both using the Euro--even when it's not really appropriate for Greece.
Splitting into different countries just sounds like a disaster to me.
I think this is a pretty dumb idea. Conflict between states is basically unthinkable right now. Even economic conflict is pretty rare, the worst we see is competing subsidies between states, which...
I think this is a pretty dumb idea. Conflict between states is basically unthinkable right now. Even economic conflict is pretty rare, the worst we see is competing subsidies between states, which is bad policy, but nothing compared to what separate countries can do to each other. Violent conflict is almost unimaginable. He talks about "a second Civil War", but the first one wasn't really a civil war, it happened when a bunch of states seceded and then we went to war with that new country. Why would we want to try that again?
The idea that if we all just split up under separate government we could leave each other alone and stop fighting about stuff is disproven by every international event in history, and every dynamic of current global politics. He talks about the Roman Empire, which is maybe a good example of "splitting up is inevitable", but definitely not a good example of "splitting up is a good idea".
The only good thought in here is that intentionally dividing the country while we're still at peace would be better than letting the country rip itself apart violently when things get past the point of no return. I think that's reasonable, but we are so far from that point that it's not worth talking about, and it's not a thing to look forward to. Whether or not we're forced into it, we will not be better off as separate countries.
I agree. I would even say that in a way, the U.S. is already a bunch of separate countries. As other commenters have pointed out, splitting the U.S. would work best with a strong economic union like the E.U. Add in a shared military, and you're already back to a federal government that is vaguely similar to what the federal government used to be (the exact period would depend on how strong of union). State governments are already important and powerful, but don't receive much attention.
I think a more reasonable yet still drastic solution that brings attention to state governments would be to merge states into larger ones, but still keep them all a part of the U.S. This could also make national representation more proportionate to population if the states are merged to be more equal in population. Even if a Alaska or Hawaii keep their two senators and now even more disproportionate population, it would become more of a weird quirk in how federal power is allotted, rather than large pool of over-represented states that make up a feasible path to the presidency. You could even argue that these states might warrant their extra representation due to their unique situations.
Merging states would also mean that states have the scale and resources to implement large programs (such as universal health care) if they wanted to.
It really depends what that would look like. Do we have open borders? I imagine you'd see the brain drain from conservative states exacerbated when liberal-leaning people there don't have a federal government to save them on things like marriage equality.
Edit: and as people above has said it would be a disaster worse than Brexit is turning out to be.
Thought this was an interesting article. I don't agree with everything here, but the overall take that the US should be split into different countries is one that I do generally agree with. Interested in hearing what people around here think
He didn't really talk about it, but I'm guessing separate countries under an economic union like the EU. Separate countries, separate borders, separate markets sounds awful, and would cripple the very interconnected US economy.
But, that has its own issues. Like the EU would have, stronger economic countries and weak economic countries having the same currency just doesn't match. The US works as-is because a great deal of tax money from states like California flow into the Federal government, then flow back into other states.
Monetary policy is important; different countries with different economies have different needs for their currencies. A export-heavy state would prefer a weaker currency, for instance. You'd have issues like Greece and Germany both using the Euro--even when it's not really appropriate for Greece.
Splitting into different countries just sounds like a disaster to me.
I think this is a pretty dumb idea. Conflict between states is basically unthinkable right now. Even economic conflict is pretty rare, the worst we see is competing subsidies between states, which is bad policy, but nothing compared to what separate countries can do to each other. Violent conflict is almost unimaginable. He talks about "a second Civil War", but the first one wasn't really a civil war, it happened when a bunch of states seceded and then we went to war with that new country. Why would we want to try that again?
The idea that if we all just split up under separate government we could leave each other alone and stop fighting about stuff is disproven by every international event in history, and every dynamic of current global politics. He talks about the Roman Empire, which is maybe a good example of "splitting up is inevitable", but definitely not a good example of "splitting up is a good idea".
The only good thought in here is that intentionally dividing the country while we're still at peace would be better than letting the country rip itself apart violently when things get past the point of no return. I think that's reasonable, but we are so far from that point that it's not worth talking about, and it's not a thing to look forward to. Whether or not we're forced into it, we will not be better off as separate countries.