It might not be a bad idea to split the US into several nations. Discuss.
Say, 50 quasi-independent jurisdictions, all subordinate to the federal government?
Seriously though, I'm not sure what splitting would improve. I can't imagine if say, Mississippi got kicked out of the US that Mississippians would be better off.
They would almost definitely not be better off. The next question is: do you care?
We don't break up nations as state borders stand -- though we would use them as a basis. I'm thinking that the artist formerly known as the confederates can be a country (save for Florida, which we offer to the indigenous Americans first, and Austin, which becomes an independent city-state), the northeast can do our own thing, as will the West Coast. Great Plains can be their own nation, and the midwest. Hawaii gets independence from everything, and we help them find the heir to their throne if they want to reinstate it. Alaska we sell to the highest bidder. Proceeds are split proportionally between the new countries based on population.
Not that I've thought about this a lot or anything.
Austin can go right along with the rest of Texas; the hordes of white hipsters there love to congratulate themselves on how progressive they are while assiduously avoiding the parts of town where they might have to talk to a real-life poor black person.
Definitely. Just because they're on average unhealthier, poorer, and less educated than the rest of the country doesn't mean I want them to suffer. General welfare, sum total of human suffering, etc etc.
Austin can go right along with the rest of Texas; the hordes of white hipsters there love to congratulate themselves on how progressive they are while assiduously avoiding the parts of town where they might have to talk to a real-life poor black person.
Note that I said they would become their own city state, not part of one of the other nations.
My corner of the country is just a bunch of roots drawing money to major northeastern cities by capillary action. Fuck it, man, we're running dry anyway. If you guys start cutting Dixie off maybe China will buy us and we'll start making money again.
Say, 50 quasi-independent jurisdictions, all subordinate to the federal government?
Seriously though, I'm not sure what splitting would improve. I can't imagine if say, Mississippi got kicked out of the US that Mississippians would be better off.
True, Mississippi would almost certainly be worse off since they get back more in federal aid than they pay in federal taxes. However, maybe the rest of the country would be better off without Mississippi.
Much as I'm wary of cutting off the main source of employment (i.e. the South) for undergraduates in my field, most of those jobs didn't want to see my application anyway, so fuck 'em. Protip: if you're qualified to teach Latin there is always a job for you...unless you're queer.
Much as I'm wary of cutting off the main source of employment (i.e. the South) for undergraduates in my field, most of those jobs didn't want to see my application anyway, so fuck 'em. Protip: if you're qualified to teach Latin there is always a job for you...unless you're queer.
I feel like having a Gay Latin teacher would make the textbooks even harder to take seriously. XD But that's beside the point.
Well, one should keep this in mind: while all the money is in the cities, all the food comes from things that aren't cities. Until we perfect our hydroponic soy factories, we still need the Midwest for the purpose of generating food.
Yeah, think of us as a poorly optimized Civilization game. Lots of states (think of them each as a city) only have like, 1-2 farms as tile improvements. Some others have like, anywhere from 5-20 farms as tile improvements. This difference is why the states need each other.
The federal governments regulation of interstate commerce helps one hell of a lot too. Shipping would become a nightmare if you had to cross multiple national borders to move goods from the northeast to the pacific or from the west on out to Europe.
I imagine that the worst of it could be mitigated with trade agreements, but even at the most open of borders, customs means delays and lost product.
I work in export, even with NAFTA It's additional paperwork and additional customs checks and it still costs you money. Also, do you really think that every section of america are going to stay on good enough terms with all the others to allow that kind of "free" trade?
Edit: I'm not saying it would make trade impossible, just more difficult and expensive to a degree dependent on future trade negotiations."
Comments
Not that I've thought about this a lot or anything.
But that's beside the point.
I imagine that the worst of it could be mitigated with trade agreements, but even at the most open of borders, customs means delays and lost product.
Edit: I'm not saying it would make trade impossible, just more difficult and expensive to a degree dependent on future trade negotiations."