Time to disband the United States of America?

Sleepy · 07-11-2006 02:12PM #1

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 · 07-11-2006 02:41PM

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

sceptre · 07-11-2006 03:11PM

Moved to Politics

Sleepy · 07-11-2006 03:57PM

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 · 07-11-2006 04:26PM

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 · 07-11-2006 04:45PM

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 · 07-11-2006 04:46PM

4th biggest I thought.

Either way, pretty big

EamonnKeane · 07-11-2006 07:42PM

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

probe · 07-11-2006 07:56PM

GDP

Someone is forgetting:

France $2 trillion
Italy $1.7 trillion

.probe

Moriarty · 07-11-2006 09:00PM

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 · 07-11-2006 09:57PM

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 · 07-11-2006 10:02PM

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 · 07-11-2006 11:34PM

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 · 07-11-2006 11:39PM

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 · 08-11-2006 12:40AM

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

Manic Moran · 08-11-2006 01:01AM

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 · 08-11-2006 02:07AM

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 · 08-11-2006 07:35AM

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 · 08-11-2006 08:32AM

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 · 08-11-2006 09:20AM

Gurgle - you're funny

You're probably right though...

bonkey · 08-11-2006 10:17AM

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 · 08-11-2006 02:32PM

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 · 08-11-2006 03:19PM

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

Mad Finn · 08-11-2006 03:26PM

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

Manic Moran · 08-11-2006 04:35PM

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 · 09-11-2006 12:15PM

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 · 09-11-2006 12:21PM

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 · 09-11-2006 12:29PM

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 · 09-11-2006 12:59PM

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 · 09-11-2006 02:24PM

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 · 12-11-2006 07:35PM

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

Sleepy · 14-11-2006 01:00PM

LOL Voltwad, I'm sure if the UN could deal with it that FIFA would have no trouble!

It's not something I see as likely, just a though exercise really.

Moriarty · 14-11-2006 01:05PM

What have the romans ever done for us, eh?

Sleepy · 15-11-2006 12:37PM

I fail to see the relevance Moriarty. Sure, Ireland has benefitted from American investment (which was obviously a mutually beneficial arrangement or the companies wouldn't be here) but I'm not discussing this purely from an Irish perspective.

What has Americas done for the world recently? Well, let's see: helped destabilised the middle east, parts of Africa and South America; propped up dictators where it suits their corporate interests; invaded Afghanistan and Iraq without just cause or UN approval; ignored the Geneva convention; flown suspects they intend to torture through civilian airports throughout the world...

The main arguments for the disbandment imho are two-fold:

1. Most American's are not happy with the way they are governed believing their nation to be either too liberal or too conservative, more smaller nations would lead to more diversity of law, allowing 'Red' states to be countries with no gun control, abortion, gay marriage or separation of church and state if that's what they want and 'Blue' states to have all of those things if that's what they want.

2. 'Super Powers' are a threat to mankinds continued existence on this planet. They wield far too much influence in other nation's affairs purely because they're 'the biggest kid on the block' and can basically wipe out anyone that disagrees with them, even tell the UN to bugger off when it suits them. This is unacceptable imho.

Manic Moran · 15-11-2006 02:31PM

With reference to point #2 then, would you also suggest the 'disbandment' of China? It's not currently particularly throwing its military weight around, but it's an economic powerhouse right now, and it's working on the military.

If China is kindof fond of its national identity, what's the balance?

NTM

Sleepy · 16-11-2006 03:02PM

Look up the page Manic Moran, I stated as much in post 27.

China's mythified "million man army" seems terrify even the USA (and with good reason IMHO).

Manic Moran · 16-11-2006 04:45PM

My bad, so you did.

I'm not sure I like the idea of deliberately stifling bodies or disbanding them so that everyone is on an equally low footing, however. Can you imagine what would happen to our market economy if you tried doing that on a smaller scale? "Ah, that radio station network is too big. We must break them up so that they are at no great advantage compared to smaller stations."

NTM

Sleepy · 16-11-2006 05:33PM

We already do it in business. Microsoft's anti-trust case being one of the most famous examples. Another topical example being Ryanair's bid for Aer Lingus being decried by the Irish government who requested that the EU Competition Authority block the take-over.

And using your example of the media, would it really be a bad thing if Rupert Murdoch lost his stranglehold over the world's media?

Manic Moran · 16-11-2006 05:53PM

We only do to a point.

The idea is to avoid monopolies, but something being relatively large isn't a bad thing in itself, it is only a bad thing if nothing else exists to keep it in check. In the case of superpowers, one on its own could be worrisome, but a number of them means that there are some checks.

NTM

Sleepy · 17-11-2006 10:21AM

To continue the economics analogies what we currently have in world politics is an oligopoly. One or two powers being big enough to bully the rest into submission.

Being relatively large is one thing, France is a 'relatively' large country. The USA has a population of roughly five times of Frances circa 60m inhabitants. That's not relatively large, that's bloody enormous.

The raison d'etre of the UN is to prevent wars. To do this, it needs to be more powerful than the largest countries, which the US has shown it not to be. Lets face it, unless China or a coallition of virtually the rest of the world had stood up to Bush, the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were always going to happen (please note that I'm separating the actions of the current Administration from the will of what I hope are the majority of Americans who are educated/intelligent enough to understand international politics - I recognise the difference).

You say a number of super-powers means there are some checks. What are they exactly? America can't go to war if China dictates it and vice versa? Russia isn't the force it used to be so, in reallity, we're left with two super-powers. Both of whom have governments which have proven they can't be trusted to respect international law.

Moriarty · 17-11-2006 11:15AM

Sleepy wrote:

I fail to see the relevance Moriarty. Sure, Ireland has benefitted from American investment (which was obviously a mutually beneficial arrangement or the companies wouldn't be here) but I'm not discussing this purely from an Irish perspective.

What has Americas done for the world recently?

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Sleepy wrote:

1. Most American's are not happy with the way they are governed believing their nation to be either too liberal or too conservative, more smaller nations would lead to more diversity of law, allowing 'Red' states to be countries with no gun control, abortion, gay marriage or separation of church and state if that's what they want and 'Blue' states to have all of those things if that's what they want.

Let's not beat around the bush here. You couldn't give much of a toss what the american public think. Your proposition is based around what you think would be best for your world. You'll find hardly any voices in any state you go to in the US looking for secession from the union. There are political differences in every country you go to, but this doesn't mean that we should give up trying, balkanise until we have the Free Republic of North Earl Street, and then wonder why no one listens to us and nothing works within our "government".

Sleepy wrote:

2. 'Super Powers' are a threat to mankinds continued existence on this planet. They wield far too much influence in other nation's affairs purely because they're 'the biggest kid on the block' and can basically wipe out anyone that disagrees with them, even tell the UN to bugger off when it suits them. This is unacceptable imho.

Bollox. I'm pretty sure the world would be far less stable with a couple of thousand mini-states as opposed to a handful of super powers. The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner. Comfortable, happy people rarely find the need to turn to extremisim of any sort.

Sleepy · 17-11-2006 12:23PM

Moriarty wrote:

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Ensuring freedom of the seas? care to elaborate on that? I didn't know the Americans were the world's coast guard. And if so, why in the name of the spaghetti monster are they allowed to do so? Funding research is something any government should do and I'm sure it's been a sound economic investment for them and hasn't America been decried as one of the worst offenders for giving aid with pretty heavy strings attached?

Let's not beat around the bush here. You couldn't give much of a toss what the american public think. Your proposition is based around what you think would be best for your world. You'll find hardly any voices in any state you go to in the US looking for secession from the union. There are political differences in every country you go to, but this doesn't mean that we should give up trying, balkanise until we have the Free Republic of North Earl Street, and then wonder why no one listens to us and nothing works within our "government".

My proposition is based around what I think would be best for the world in general, why else would I propose it? Look at sorryeverybody.com, do those look like people who are happy to live in the US at the moment? I've already stated that I don't see the idea as being popular enough with Americans to ever happen, I mean, what group of people would give up the position of being able to do whatever the hell they like with no retribution? Does the fact that 295million people get to do whatever the hell they like regardless of the opinions of the other 5.7 billion sound right to you?

Bollox. I'm pretty sure the world would be far less stable with a couple of thousand mini-states as opposed to a handful of super powers. The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner. Comfortable, happy people rarely find the need to turn to extremisim of any sort.

Which would you prefer, a number of small skirmishes between countries or a global war? Don't you think less people would die were Iowa and Illinois to have a border dispute, Texas were to declare war on Iran while fighting a "war on terror", North Dakota attempt to annex parts of Canada, Guanxi to fall out with Hunan, Mexico to roll through Arizona's border etc. than if the US and China squared off?

Don't you think that your axiom "The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner" is a little simplistic and probably suffers from diminishing returns? Given that China is the largest country in the world (albeit a poor one) and has a horrendous record in terms of human rights, the United States has a pretty poor record in terms of distribution of wealth and Russia seems a pretty unpleasant place to live too. It seems to me that mid-sized countries seem to fare much better at governing fairly and justly.

Moriarty · 17-11-2006 01:30PM

Sleepy wrote:

Ensuring freedom of the seas? care to elaborate on that? I didn't know the Americans were the world's coast guard. And if so, why in the name of the spaghetti monster are they allowed to do so? Funding research is something any government should do and I'm sure it's been a sound economic investment for them and hasn't America been decried as one of the worst offenders for giving aid with pretty heavy strings attached?

Why are they allowed do so? Because they have the ability and good reasons for doing it, and the majority of other countries also agree with it. You asked what has the US ever done for the rest of the world, I've given you a handful of examples completely off the top of my head. There are many more. Myopic views are hardly the best on which to build a suggestion such as you've proposed.

Sleepy wrote:

My proposition is based around what I think would be best for the world in general, why else would I propose it? Look at sorryeverybody.com, do those look like people who are happy to live in the US at the moment? I've already stated that I don't see the idea as being popular enough with Americans to ever happen, I mean, what group of people would give up the position of being able to do whatever the hell they like with no retribution? Does the fact that 295million people get to do whatever the hell they like regardless of the opinions of the other 5.7 billion sound right to you?

Why else would you propose it? There's probably hundreds of legitimate answers to that revolving around various political persuasions. In such a large country there'll be a small minority supporting any cause you could pull out of a hat. Flat earth society, anyone? There's a cavernous distinction between being unhappy with who you elected into power, and wanting to balkanise your country. Hyperbole is hardly something useful on which to base such a radical proposition, either.

Sleepy wrote:

Which would you prefer, a number of small skirmishes between countries or a global war? Don't you think less people would die were Iowa and Illinois to have a border dispute, Texas were to declare war on Iran while fighting a "war on terror", North Dakota attempt to annex parts of Canada, Guanxi to fall out with Hunan, Mexico to roll through Arizona's border etc. than if the US and China squared off?

It's far more likely for minor powers to decide that war isn't such a bad thing after all. We had 40 years of peace in western europe throughout the cold war due to deterence, when the preceeding 60 years were the bloodiest in human history. I don't think that was coincedence.

Sleepy wrote:

Don't you think that your axiom "The larger and more prosperous a country, the more likely it will be governed in a fair and just manner" is a little simplistic and probably suffers from diminishing returns? Given that China is the largest country in the world (albeit a poor one) and has a horrendous record in terms of human rights, the United States has a pretty poor record in terms of distribution of wealth and Russia seems a pretty unpleasant place to live too. It seems to me that mid-sized countries seem to fare much better at governing fairly and justly.

Not really. Compare the China of today to the china of 20 years ago and it has vastly improved in how it treats its citizens and conducts itself on the international stage. That will continue apace due to the reforms put in the place and a growing middle class. I can only see China becoming much more stable over the next 20 years since it's going down it's present course.

Russia is in a pretty severe state of flux at the moment. It still hasn't come anywhere close to resolving the problems that surfaced after the collapse of the USSR. Using Russia as an example of how "big states are bad" is a fallacy, as it's a state in turmoil due to its previous enforced direction by the soviet party.

You've also lost sight of the EU which would seem to contradict your position.

RedPlanet · 17-11-2006 02:29PM

Moriarty wrote:

Oh lets list a few off the top of my head.. ensuring freedom of the seas for world trade.. guarenteeing western european security up until a few years ago.. massive funding for research into diseases which affect billions of the poorest people on the planet, not to mention more billions in aid.. massive relief operations in disaster-stricken parts of asia over the last number of years..

Ensuring the freedom of the seas?
What, can you elaborate on that?
During the Cold War years the Russians maintained a much larger naval fleet so i would suppose that infact it was they that protected us from chaos in International waters.
The yanks were out manned and out gunned in the water, and so pursued different military strengths, perhaps air superiority for example.
Now that the Cold War is supposedly over, the yanks possibly do maintain the largest naval fleet, however that hasn't been the case for very long.

Guaranteeing western europe security?
I'm not sure the Russian ever threatened western europe so i'm not sure what exactly the yanks were "guaranteeing", other than to ratchet up tensions to create a fairy tale enemy.

Funding research for diseases is normally done by the private sector in America, unless i'm mistaken.

But disaster Aid?
Again it's something that comes from the private sector in America.
The US government doesn't normally do "aid", rather "loans", which have strings attached.

Sleepy · 17-11-2006 02:45PM

Moriarty wrote:

Why are they allowed do so? Because they have the ability and good reasons for doing it, and the majority of other countries also agree with it. You asked what has the US ever done for the rest of the world, I've given you a handful of examples completely off the top of my head. There are many more. Myopic views are hardly the best on which to build a suggestion such as you've proposed.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to suggest that the US is some evil-overlord. I just question placing so much power into the hands of one country. If the world's oceans need policing, it should be a job for the UN imho.

Why else would you propose it? There's probably hundreds of legitimate answers to that revolving around various political persuasions. In such a large country there'll be a small minority supporting any cause you could pull out of a hat. Flat earth society, anyone? There's a cavernous distinction between being unhappy with who you elected into power, and wanting to balkanise your country. Hyperbole is hardly something useful on which to base such a radical proposition, either.

Why would I propose it? As I said in my OP, it was just an idea that floated into my head that I couldn't find many counter-arguments for and I thought I'd see if anyone else could provide some. I intended (and still intend) this to be a discussion of a theory rather than a heated debate.

Do you really see it as hyper-bole to suggest that America can get away with pretty much anything it likes? I mean, they've illegally invaded two sovereign nations in the last 5 years (allegedly committing war-crimes along the way) and have an internment camp in another country where they're holding people who have been denied POW status, haven't received a legal trial of any kind and if reports are to be believed are being tortured. Seems like a fairly hefty list of charges to me.

It's far more likely for minor powers to decide that war isn't such a bad thing after all. We had 40 years of peace in western europe throughout the cold war due to deterence, when the preceeding 60 years were the bloodiest in human history. I don't think that was coincedence.

A valid point and the first good argument for the existence of super-powers I've heard. This reasoning would support Manic Moran's assertion that a federalised Europe would be the way to go (as something of a moderate super-power, ideologically somewhere between the current two). Unfortunately, a fully federalised Europe would seem as unlikely as a 'balkanised' US.

Not really. Compare the China of today to the china of 20 years ago and it has vastly improved in how it treats its citizens and conducts itself on the international stage. That will continue apace due to the reforms put in the place and a growing middle class. I can only see China becoming much more stable over the next 20 years since it's going down it's present course.

Russia is in a pretty severe state of flux at the moment. It still hasn't come anywhere close to resolving the problems that surfaced after the collapse of the USSR. Using Russia as an example of how "big states are bad" is a fallacy, as it's a state in turmoil due to its previous enforced direction by the soviet party.

You haven't really pointed out any benefits to big states, nor discredited the argument that they've been (and still are) some of the worst offenders in terms of human rights etc.

You've also lost sight of the EU which would seem to contradict your position.

The EU isn't a country and I can't see it becoming one during my lifetime. I hope I'm wrong because I think Manic Moran may be right that a federalised Europe would be a good thing (if only as an extra deterrant to other nations from attacking us).

The one thing that's striking from your arguments is that it seems MAD was right: Mutually Assured Destruction really does seem to be the best argument for having super-powers. What a strange world.

Manic Moran · 17-11-2006 11:00PM

RedPlanet wrote:

Ensuring the freedom of the seas?
What, can you elaborate on that?

Well, they're currently engaging pirates off the Somali coast. (though any sort of a pirate shoots an RPG at a 6,000 ton cruiser which is hunting him is probably too stupid to last long). There was also the whole bit about US ships escorting tankers during the tanker war, though that probably was as much an issue of other countries getting a fringe benefit from American interests. But still, they benefitted. Didn't see many Russian warships trying it.

During the Cold War years the Russians maintained a much larger naval fleet so i would suppose that infact it was they that protected us from chaos in International waters.

I do recall that one famous incident of the Russian naval transport that dealt with a bunch of pirates a few years ago near Malaysia. The bodies were dumped overboard. However, I do question the bit about the Soviet navy being much larger than the US Navy. They had larger numbers of coastal vessels and submarines, neither of which does very much good for keeping sealanes open. When it comes to blue-water craft, I am at a loss to think of any category of ship which the US did not at any time seriously outnumber the USSR.

The yanks were out manned and out gunned in the water, and so pursued different military strengths, perhaps air superiority for example.
Now that the Cold War is supposedly over, the yanks possibly do maintain the largest naval fleet, however that hasn't been the case for very long.

Again, that curious statement. You have any particular year in mind, so I can go post the results? Two hundred Shershen class torpedo boats that don't often venture outside of territorial waters don't do a whole hell of a lot for International maritime safety. You want frigates and larger.

I'm not sure the Russian ever threatened western europe so i'm not sure what exactly the yanks were "guaranteeing", other than to ratchet up tensions to create a fairy tale enemy.

I think it was more an issue of the West not being particularly interested in taking a chance.

Funding research for diseases is normally done by the private sector in America, unless i'm mistaken.

A quick Googling shows the US Federal Government threw over $18bn at medical research in 1999. Not as much as the private sector, but hardly something to be sneezed at.

But disaster Aid?
Again it's something that comes from the private sector in America.
The US government doesn't normally do "aid", rather "loans", which have strings attached.

The US government does eat a fair bit of the private sector aid, as if I make any 'charitable contributions' I can then itemize deductions on my tax bill. It's a sort of 'matching contribution' thing: If I donate $100 to the American Red Cross which the ARC then sends to the Pacific (or whatever), the US Government refunds me just over $30. It's actually not a bad idea, because it basically means that the US Populace get to decide where a lot of the aid money goes to. In effect, when you read of an American private aid contribution, it's actually 2/3 private, 1/3 US Federal Government. This is in addition to any direct federal contributions.
A lot of the other expense is also eaten up directly by the federal government. All those helicopters flying around Pakistan after their earthquake, or the Pacific after the tsunami were paid for out of the DOD's operating budget.

NTM

BlitzKrieg · 17-11-2006 11:43PM

Sleepy how much do you know of the American Civil War?

wiki wrote:

A confederation may also consist of member states which, while temporarily pooling sovereignty in certain areas, are considered entirely sovereign and retain the right of secession.

Its an interesting note that while slavery has been made the defacto of the american civil war there are numerous other political elements, one of which was the desire of confederency to have the freedom to leave the united states if they so desire, now the reasoning to leave the US might be dubious (slavery), but it does raise the question if that political function had been made possible how much of the US would be unified today?

I believe the EU has something similar, in that it is wholey possible for any member state to remove themselves from the union (hence why its not a federation which Greenland did infact do in 1985.

On a side note, speaking of the American Civil War, am I the only one that finds it unsettling that its the only Civil War that seems justified? Any other country Civil Wars are seen a senseless violent periods which had no benefitial results (In Ireland it casted a very long shadow over Irish politics and life) while in the US, while a number of battles are remembered for their horrific casualties the war itself is looked at in a more positive light then any other country I know.

Hogmeister B · 19-11-2006 01:56PM

Sleepy wrote:

a federalised Europe would be a good thing (if only as an extra deterrant to other nations from attacking us).

Europe hasn't been attacked by an external power since the Mongols invaded Russia in the 1400s

ciaran2008 · 29-03-2008 05:35PM

Come on people the USA will never break away into separate independent states! In fact it might interest you to know that it will actually be growing. . yes you heard me right! North American Union anyone??

Wikipedia:
The North American Union (abbreviated NAU) is a theoretical continental union of Canada, Mexico and the United States similar in structure to the European Union, sometimes including a common currency called the Amero.

With increasing dominance of the European Union, South American Union, African Union and Asian Union the USA does not have nor will they have any plans to break up! Federal government dominates in America (in regards to foreign policy anyway) and that’s the way it will remain!

oscarBravo · 29-03-2008 08:18PM

Necromancy bad.

Time to disband the United States of America?

Comments