Time to disband the United States of America?

Sleepy

Just a rather random thought I had the other day that I'd like to hear other's opinions on because I couldn't really think of any strong arguments against the notion: would it be best for all concerned if the United States were to break up into it's component parts, each state becoming an independent sovereign nation?

The USA is an incredibly divided country at the moment with the majority of those we see visiting our own country embaressed by the fact they're being governed by the likes of Bush. Would it be best for, for example, the people of Massachusets (Over 60% of whom voted for Kerry in 2004) to rule themselves according to their ideals of governance whilst leaving the likes of Utah (where Bush scored a staggering 71.1% of the vote) free to teach creationism, ban gay marriage, abortion etc.

Whilst this might seem horrendous if you were an agnostic, gay, pro-choice, democrat living in Utah, or a god-fearing, pro-life, born again christian living in D.C. it'd be fairly easy for you to move to one of the states which were being governed according your ideals (or indeed closest to your ideals for the majority who'd be somewhere in between these polar extremes) and wouldn't the majority of people be happier this way?

From a broader perspective, wouldn't the world be a safer place if there were one less nation able to act in defiance of the UN?

Of course, I can't see this happening given the flag-waving patriotism of the United States and the fact that it would inevitably lead to such a hugely disproportionate spread of wealth between the different states (i.e. given the correlation between IQ and democrat/republican voting tendencies http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm one can derive the assumption that the democrat states would more than likely be the richer states long run - though the distribution of natural resources such as oil may skew these figures).

It's one of those random thoughts that I can't get out of my head at the moment and fully admit that it's not fully thought out yet, I don't see this as a manifesto or a firmly held belief. It's just an idea that I'm curious to hear other's thoughts on.

[Edit: not sure if this is what's meant by Political theory necessarily so if you think I've posted this in the wrong forum, mods please feel free to shunt it over to humanities]

DadaKopf

Is this really political theory? Unless you can link it to international relations theory or something?

sceptre

Moved to Politics

Sleepy

Apologies, my interest in politics is an amateur one, wasn't sure whether political theory meant arguing over what constituted marxism etc. or discussing theoretcial political situations.

Still interested to hear other's opinions on this though

flogen

Sleepy wrote:

Of course, I can't see this happening given the flag-waving patriotism of the United States and the fact that it would inevitably lead to such a hugely disproportionate spread of wealth between the different states (i.e. given the correlation between IQ and democrat/republican voting tendencies http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm one can derive the assumption that the democrat states would more than likely be the richer states long run - though the distribution of natural resources such as oil may skew these figures).

Without replying to your idea fully (might later!), I heard somewhere recently that California, were it to break away from the USA, would have the single biggest economy or GDP in the world... anyone know if that's true?

FatherTed

California's gross state product exceeds $1.3 trillion, making it one of the world's largest economies.
California accounts for 13 percent of the nation's output, and trails only Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Our nation's next largest state economy—New York—is about 60 percent the size of California's

Moriarty

4th biggest I thought.

Either way, pretty big

EamonnKeane

Um, being behind Japan, UK and Germany IS fourth place...

probe

GDP

Someone is forgetting:

France $2 trillion
Italy $1.7 trillion

.probe

Moriarty

I was replying to flogen FatherTed replied in the time it took me to write mine and I didn't notice it after I'd posted.

metrovelvet

I dont really understand what you mean. Do you mean abolish the federal government/ the union so what we have are 50 separate countries?

Manic Moran

Sleepy wrote:

Just a rather random thought I had the other day that I'd like to hear other's opinions on because I couldn't really think of any strong arguments against the notion: would it be best for all concerned if the United States were to break up into it's component parts, each state becoming an independent sovereign nation?

We must hang together, or surely we will hang separately.

The US is kindof used to being the big boy on the block. I'm not sure that the concept of being radically reduced in power to lots of little independent entities is going to go down well. They will find themselves with a lack of independent clout. The solution in Europe is to join up in a big Union. Well, that's exactly what we've got going on in the US right now.

Would it be best for, for example, the people of Massachusets (Over 60% of whom voted for Kerry in 2004) to rule themselves according to their ideals of governance whilst leaving the likes of Utah (where Bush scored a staggering 71.1% of the vote) free to teach creationism, ban gay marriage, abortion etc.

You would not be the first person to come up with such a concept. However, the reason for what you are suggesting is the way it is right now anyway. The US is a federation of United States, not one country exclusively governed from D.C. As it stands, a state can teach creationism if it wants (witness Kansas) without affecting another other state. Various states are having referenda on gay marriage and abortions today. The result in New Jersey is going to have no legal standing on the result in South Dakota. Pennsylvania has an individual right to have firearms in its State Constitution, California's policy is that it's a collective right. And so on.

Whilst this might seem horrendous if you were an agnostic, gay, pro-choice, democrat living in Utah, or a god-fearing, pro-life, born again christian living in D.C.

No worse than it is right now. I'm a pro-gun nut, living in anti-gun CA. In theory, I could move across the state line to Nevada, and own whatever gun I want.

it'd be fairly easy for you to move to one of the states which were being governed according your ideals (or indeed closest to your ideals for the majority who'd be somewhere in between these polar extremes) and wouldn't the majority of people be happier this way?

What's stopping anyone from moving around today if they want to? Though I love firearms, I don't consider the merits of Nevada to out-do the merits of California overall.

From a broader perspective, wouldn't the world be a safer place if there were one less nation able to act in defiance of the UN?

You mean 38 more? All those red states now suddenly become independent countries aren't going to change their opinion of the UN.

(i.e. given the correlation between IQ and democrat/republican voting tendencies http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

I had a look at that site, as I think it's a ridiculous premise. It said it based its info off another site. Follow that link, you go to another site. And another. And you end up at this table:

http://sq.4mg.com/SATstates.htm

State IQ Voted for in 2004

Iowa 113 Bush
North Dakota 112 Bush
Minnesota 112 Bush
Wisconsin 111 Kerry
Kansas 111 Bush
South Dakota 111 Bush
Illinois 109 Kerry
Missouri 109 Bush
Utah 109 Bush
Nebraska 108 Bush
Oklahoma 108 Bush
Michigan 108 Kerry
Arkansas 108 Bush
Tennessee 108 Bush

And so on. Something is obviously amiss.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that there is some form of link between 'average state intelligence' (unless you believe that there is a different species of human in each state) and political affiliation, that's just an issue of culture.

one can derive the assumption that the democrat states would more than likely be the richer states long run - though the distribution of natural resources such as oil may skew these figures).

Hmm. And other natural resources. Like food. I'd like to see the Independent Democratic Republic of New York feed itself. They'd probably have to buy from the Independent Redneck Republic of Kansas. That should help the financial figures for the Reds. Ditto a lot of the US's manufacturing capability is in Red states. Nice, open areas to put the factories. The city folk don't want them anywhere near them, after all! Ultimately, the Red States don't depend on Blue States for their survival. The Blue States, though they don't like to admit it, are dependent on the Red ones.

NTM

RedPlanet

That link isn't opening for me MM.
However from your url i wonder are the 2 sites comparing the same?
Is your site looking at SAT scores rather than IQ?

Agent Smith

RedPlanet, if they are SAT scores, they would be Very Low. AFAIK The SAT's Are out of 1600.

i am of course, open to correction.

The_Minister

That link has a disclaimer at the end, saying that it has been called a hoax.

Manic Moran

agent smith wrote:

RedPlanet, if they are SAT scores, they would be Very Low. AFAIK The SAT's Are out of 1600.

i am of course, open to correction.

You are right that they're out of 1600. I scored in at about 1340 or so. The highest average on the site I ended up following the links to was 1194 (Iowa), which sounds about right.

NTM

Houston Griffin

States with the highest SAT scores tend to be states where the ACT is the norm, and those taking the SATs are bound for an out of state university. States with the lowest SAT scores are states where all students are required to take the exam, university bound or not.

Mexicola

FatherTed wrote:

California's gross state product exceeds $1.3 trillion, making it one of the world's largest economies.
California accounts for 13 percent of the nation's output, and trails only Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

And Arnie's in charge!

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

would it be best for all concerned if the United States were to break up into it's component parts, each state becoming an independent sovereign nation?

It would be a matter of days before Texas, New Mexico and Arizona ganged up and invaded California to search for WMD.

The bible belt on the east coast would unite as a theocracacy and take New York to save them from themselves.

Within months they would join the Texas alliance and take the whole country over, some redneck oil baron would be president and it would all be like it never happened.

Kaylee

Gurgle - you're funny

You're probably right though...

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

would it be best for all concerned if the United States were to break up into it's component parts, each state becoming an independent sovereign nation?

No. Not unless you redefine "all concerned" to be something like "those who'd like to see a world without the United States in its current form".

Mad Finn

Manic Moran wrote:

No worse than it is right now. I'm a pro-gun nut, living in anti-gun CA. In theory, I could move across the state line to Nevada, and own whatever gun I want......Though I love firearms, I don't consider the merits of Nevada to out-do the merits of California overall.

ROTFLMBFHAO!!!!!

Loosely translated: I may be a gun nut but I'm not a complete bloody fool!!

When given the choice between:
the Pacific coast
year round sunshine in a deciduous zone
beaches
blondes in bikinis
surfing
San Fransisco
Yosemite national park
night life
grass

and
a desert with a casino town in the middle of it but the freedom to wave an Uzi about.........I'll keep my cannon in its holster.

So glad to see that sanity reigns among some on the right.

'No Arab loves the desert. There is nothing in the desert. We love water and green trees'
Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness) Lawrence of Arabia

]

metrovelvet

California is anti-gun? I thought guns were quite common in Los Angeles?

Mad Finn

They're not unknown in Limerick, Dublin or Belfast either. But just as illegal.

Manic Moran

Mad Finn wrote:

So glad to see that sanity reigns among some on the right.

Except I'm slightly left of center. I'm one of those people who would suit the moderate Ds currently looking for victory in MT and VA, both of which are very much pro-gun.

NTM

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

I dont really understand what you mean. Do you mean abolish the federal government/ the union so what we have are 50 separate countries?

That's it in a nutshell.

Manic Moran wrote:

We must hang together, or surely we will hang separately.

A rather throw away comment if you don't mind me saying so.

The US is kindof used to being the big boy on the block. I'm not sure that the concept of being radically reduced in power to lots of little independent entities is going to go down well. They will find themselves with a lack of independent clout. The solution in Europe is to join up in a big Union. Well, that's exactly what we've got going on in the US right now.

I don't see this as something that would be popular, an awful lot of things that are necessary for our survival are unpopular e.g. taxes.

While the US may be used to being the 'big boy on the block', why is it a good idea to have any super power? A lot of the problems in the world right now have stemmed from US intervention in their self-appointed 'World Police' role. One of the main reasons I think this might be a good idea would be to remove this power from whoever happens to be in charge of the White House/Senate (Republican or Democrat)

You would not be the first person to come up with such a concept. However, the reason for what you are suggesting is the way it is right now anyway. The US is a federation of United States, not one country exclusively governed from D.C. As it stands, a state can teach creationism if it wants (witness Kansas) without affecting another other state. Various states are having referenda on gay marriage and abortions today. The result in New Jersey is going to have no legal standing on the result in South Dakota. Pennsylvania has an individual right to have firearms in its State Constitution, California's policy is that it's a collective right. And so on.

No worse than it is right now. I'm a pro-gun nut, living in anti-gun CA. In theory, I could move across the state line to Nevada, and own whatever gun I want.

What's stopping anyone from moving around today if they want to? Though I love firearms, I don't consider the merits of Nevada to out-do the merits of California overall.

You're right, if you're pro-gun, you are a nut! (but that's an entirely other thread). Part of my point is that, while the states have some control of what happens within their own borders, they are still taxed, financed and most importantly represented to the outside world as a single entity.

You mean 38 more? All those red states now suddenly become independent countries aren't going to change their opinion of the UN.

50 small states are not going to be able to act in defiance of the UN individually. They can try, but the UN would be big enough to slap them back into place. This is posibly the crux of my idea: the USA is too big, too powerful and too divided to be allowed have that power. I'd argue that no country should have the power to defy the UN. In business we endeavour to protect our markets from the effects of monopolys, why shouldn't we do the same in the market of world power?

I had a look at that site, as I think it's a ridiculous premise. It said it based its info off another site. Follow that link, you go to another site. And another. And you end up at this table:

http://sq.4mg.com/SATstates.htm

State IQ Voted for in 2004

Iowa 113 Bush
North Dakota 112 Bush
Minnesota 112 Bush
Wisconsin 111 Kerry
Kansas 111 Bush
South Dakota 111 Bush
Illinois 109 Kerry
Missouri 109 Bush
Utah 109 Bush
Nebraska 108 Bush
Oklahoma 108 Bush
Michigan 108 Kerry
Arkansas 108 Bush
Tennessee 108 Bush

And so on. Something is obviously amiss.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that there is some form of link between 'average state intelligence' (unless you believe that there is a different species of human in each state) and political affiliation, that's just an issue of culture.

Fair enough, I guess my ready acceptance of that comes down to my own view that anyone voting Republican must be stupid. Mea Culpa.

Hmm. And other natural resources. Like food. I'd like to see the Independent Democratic Republic of New York feed itself. They'd probably have to buy from the Independent Redneck Republic of Kansas. That should help the financial figures for the Reds. Ditto a lot of the US's manufacturing capability is in Red states. Nice, open areas to put the factories. The city folk don't want them anywhere near them, after all! Ultimately, the Red States don't depend on Blue States for their survival. The Blue States, though they don't like to admit it, are dependent on the Red ones.

NTM

I think that's a rather naieve view. The US is running a massive trade defecit so I think it's fair to say that none of the states are self-sufficient. It's probably fair to say that no country in the world is entirely self-sufficient in the modern world. Some states would be dependent for other for food, whilst those other states would be dependent upon them for telecommunications/banking/etc.

Like I said, I don't think this is something that will happen because it'd be so unpopular with most Americans but I am starting to believe it would probably be best for them and the rest of the world.

Sleepy

bonkey wrote:

No. Not unless you redefine "all concerned" to be something like "those who'd like to see a world without the United States in its current form".

Well, I'd consider "all concerned" to be all citizens of planet Earth. Why is it to the advantage of the world population to have one country powerful enough to dictate to others how they should run their affairs, to disregard the international community in matters of how we treat our planet etc?

I don't see any advantage to this at all. For the inhabitants of that country, there are surely benefits to being able to throw one's weight around but when those throwing the weight around are completely at odds with half of the people they represent (which would be the case of any administration at the moment, republican or democrat) it's not even to the benefit of all the inhabitants of that country is it?

[Edit: BTW, I believe most of these arguments probably hold true for China and Russia too, just taking the US as the predominant example]

RedPlanet

It's a great idea but would never happen.
There's only 2 places that spring to mind that may even consider seceeding from the Union.
Alaska and Texas.
No states would be allowed seceed. That's what the Civil War was fought over.

And other natural resources. Like food. I'd like to see the Independent Democratic Republic of New York feed itself. They'd probably have to buy from the Independent Redneck Republic of Kansas. That should help the financial figures for the Reds. Ditto a lot of the US's manufacturing capability is in Red states. Nice, open areas to put the factories. The city folk don't want them anywhere near them, after all! Ultimately, the Red States don't depend on Blue States for their survival. The Blue States, though they don't like to admit it, are dependent on the Red ones.

I doubt it MM, since what other sources of revenue really exist in places like Kansas. They'd have to sell their goods to somebody.
More likely, those places may find themselves reverted back to the Dust Bowl days of stagnation, emigration, depression.
They'd have to open their markets (land resources) up and find themselves exploited to the hilt by the big spenders in well, the big cities out East.

daithimac

I'm frightened by the fact that someone who I would presume to be a European would conceive such as horrifying notion
In the past century this Continent of small fragmented nations has been embroiled in two world wars and numerous smaller scale conflicts such as the Spanish civil war, the Balkan conflict and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia not to mention the Irish war of Independence and resulting civil war resulting in the deaths of over 100 million people. That also just happens to be in the century. we could go back into the century's past also but the wars and conflicts between our small nations here are too numerous to be listed.

The notion of the united states of America disbanding is not just ridiculous but also horrifying. the idea that one state would be look on in jealousy upon a richer neighbor or one state controlling nuclear weapons and the only key to establishing control being able to garner control of the local militia. the Idea of wars developing over border disputes between Vermont and Delaware

I would go so far as to state that a brighter future lays not in the disbandment of the united states but is the federalization of not just Europe but also that of Africa and South America. It is usually true that what applies to small groups of people applies to nations as a whole and I believe that we can live together or hang apart.

I would agree that a world with a single pole is naturally unbalanced but the solution in not to remove the pole but rather to add others.

Sleepy

While I like the idea of a united world under one governance (I believe it would lead to governance of those most qualified to govern rather than the simple populist basis of national democracy), surely you can see that this is completely unrealistic?

Take the EU as an example, countries still go to war on their own, opt in or out of open labour markets, currency standards etc. Getting Europe federalised seems nigh on impossible. Now map that to Africa, Asia, The Middle East or South America, areas where neighbouring countries absolutely detest one another and the problems experienced in federalising the EU look like playschool squabbles. As I've said, I love the idea of a united world, however I see that as even less realistic than the premise removing the threat posed by 'super-powers'.

The Volt

This thread has been great to read I must say. This comment might be completely out of context but it was the first thing to hit me whilst reading the opening post. What the hell would happen with World Cup qualification?:L