Question: What would be the problem with dividing the US and Canada into more sovereign nations?

We already have enough red-state/blue-state strife. Wouldn't it be better just to split the two groups off into separate countries? Of course, America's ability to strong-arm the rest of the world would diminish, but wouldn't it be worth it not to have to deal with those inbred, cousin-fucking, bible-thumping, xenophobic, knuckle-dragging, war-mongering conservative assholes or those limp-wristed, arugula-munching, appeasing, peacenik, sodomite, euphemism-spouting, politically-correct liberal fucktards screwing up the whole country?

Here is a picture I paintsbrushed of the US and Canada divided into a number of smaller nations.



Liberals get Canada, Quebec, the North East and the Great Lakes area and California. Conservatives get the South and Midwest, (and for Theocrats) Texas and Utah. (nobody cares about Texas or Utah. Good riddance.) Libertarians of various stripes (ranging from nearly conservative to nearly anarchist) get the high arctic, New England and the Canadian Maritime Provinces, Hawaii and the Western US.

P.S. You may find the libertarian areas excessively large. Keep in mind, however, that these only represent 11.5% of the current population of the US and Canada. Assuming a certain amount of migration, its not completely unreasonable to assume that libertarians (using a lose definition of "libertarian") could gain political control of such areas. In the end though, this is my hypothetical situation, so go fuck yourself.

P.P.S. Yes, this is the sort of thing I do when I'm drunk on a Monday night...

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 1:34 AM. Reason : pic]

9/2/2008 1:25:28 AM

Zombie Lincoln would put an end to it pretty quick.

9/2/2008 1:47:45 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

God bless Wikipedia.

9/2/2008 2:05:51 AM

I don't know what kind of ideas you normally have, but this is probably your worst one yet.

9/2/2008 2:40:23 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/

Quote :

"Palin disclosures raise questions about vetting Alaskans say no one from McCain camp asked them about eventual VP pick By Elisabeth Bumiller updated 11:10 p.m. ET, Mon., Sept. 1, 2008 ST. PAUL - A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket. On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father. Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge. "

Palin can has Alaska?

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 6:44 AM. Reason : .]

9/2/2008 6:44:33 AM

It worked out well in A Handmaid's Tale.

9/2/2008 7:25:15 AM

That map brings back some memories of RISK, complete with crazy nation names



not sure I ever made it through an entrie game though

9/2/2008 8:06:55 AM

Look the question isn't about the map, the question is about separatism.

Is the US too big? Aren't there too many conflicting groups and interests fighting over the same goverment? Wouldn't it be better to be able to just give some of those groups the finger and send them on their separate way?

Smaller countries have a number of advantages over large ones. First of all, they simply can't get away with as much shit. A lot of the dumb things that big countries do would simply be impossible for a small country. Take trade. The US has a number taxes, tariffs and restrictions on the import and export of various goods. If those restrictions were total, if no trade was permitted with the rest of the world, then our standard of living would drop (a lot), but the US still has enough resources and division of labor to maintain a technological civilization. A smaller country couldn't do this at all, and even the sort of trade barriers which now exist would be felt more acutely. A small country would be forced by necessity to integrate itself much more seamlessly into the world economy.

With smaller countries it's much easier to move to the next country over. Small countries will thus be forced to compete more fiercely over businesses and taxpayers. It's much easier to move a factory or your family a few hundred miles than to have to move thousands of miles to find a saner or more agreeable political jurisdiction. This competition of smaller, regional governments to attract and keep taxpaying residents and productive businesses should tend to produce more efficient, responsive and accountable government that's less burdensome and oppressive.

9/2/2008 9:42:06 AM

The problem with the proposal isn't so much in the end result, it's the process to get there. A peaceful transition turning two sovereign nations into 11 new powers? I suppose it's possible. I also think there is something to be said for the sustainability of smaller (geographically) nations. In the very long run, it may be easier to sustain smaller regions politically and economically.

If we were to say say "I'm in" how do we get there from here? A map such as the one you've outlined could possibly evolve over a long period of time, through a series of conflicts. Or some cataclysmic event could force the Populus to operate on a localized scale more quickly. (Nuclear war being the most obvious candidate, but a pandemic or possibly Peak Oil worst case scenario might get us there.) There are also rumors (I believe on the Internets) of a global financial crisis as a result of the current trade system coming to terms with drastically higher energy costs at the same time the cost of living in developing nations is quickly going up with the standard of living.

Then there is the question of how does North America then compete with other more singularly powerful world entities (both Economically, and quite possibly militarily) A North American Union of sorts? Which gets us back to square one (or possibly worse.)

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason : .]

9/2/2008 9:58:46 AM

More like the United States of Europe.

9/2/2008 10:05:59 AM

Quote :

"Look the question isn't about the map, the question is about separatism. Is the US too big? Aren't there too many conflicting groups and interests fighting over the same goverment?"

I think this brings up State Rights. If the Federal Government knew its role and left a lot of legislation up to state government, I think that would be a better system. It would produce some of the competition you mentioned (although maybe not to the same degree as seperate nations).

More local government gives locals more say and spreads power out rather than centralizing it at the Federal level (where there is less consensus on what should be done with that power)

9/2/2008 10:17:46 AM

^^
.... that doesn't make any sense.

at all

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/2/2008 10:18:23 AM

^^^^ You're right. It seems unlikely that the US would simply let something like a state, or group of states, peacefully separate from the Union. Democracy, its seems, means that whoever happens to be in power ought to retain that power by force, not that people should be free to choose how they wish to be governed. The only way it could occur is if there was a war and the separatists won, or if very nearly all the states seceded at once, leaving no large block loyal to the former central government.

On the other hand, as unlikely as it now seems, something like a complete financial meltdown could shake people up enough to allow a peaceful dissolution to occur, a la the Soviet Union.

But what about a fundamentally different approach. What if a single town, or a rural county, were to secede? Would the state government and the federal government have the political will to employ the necessary brutality to bring them back to heel by force? If the secessionist area were not large enough to pose a threat to the central government, would the negative publicity of butchering a few thousand helpless civilians outweigh the potential benefit of bringing them back under subjugation?

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM. Reason : ^^]

9/2/2008 10:29:01 AM

don't they already do that to things like religious compounds?

9/2/2008 10:31:03 AM

No, it's just that the inhabitants of religious compounds have an unfortunate habit of committing suicide when they get massacred by federales.

9/2/2008 10:52:43 AM

Wouldn't it be easier to keep the federal government but to utilize state governments like the original Founding Fathers intended?

9/2/2008 11:27:45 AM

The soviet union broke apart because it was a forced and artificial empire in the first place. Russia simply lost the power to hold the other states in line, so they broke off. None of the states in America want to leave, I don't see any US state except possibly Alaska trying to break off even in the case of total economic collapse, maybe Puerto Rico and other US territories.

The people would never vote for this, the only way it happens is if it is forced on the US and Canada by a tyrannical government, and for some reason I don't see a tyrannical government willingly relinquishing control of most of the government.

The only way this happens is in the case of nuclear war resulting in pretty much the entire US government's destruction.

9/2/2008 11:34:00 AM

I could see California breaking off before Alaska. For one thing there has been several occasions of conflicting stances btw state and federal law. For instance medical marijuana

9/2/2008 11:45:54 AM

Quote :

"Wouldn't it be easier to keep the federal government but to utilize state governments like the original Founding Fathers intended?"

That's been tried. It didn't last long. You're looking at the results.

9/2/2008 12:57:53 PM

Quote :

"A smaller country couldn't do this at all, and even the sort of trade barriers which now exist would be felt more acutely. A small country would be forced by necessity to integrate itself much more seamlessly into the world economy."

Is this necessarily a good thing? Smaller nations also tend to get steamrolled by larger nations when it comes to negotiating trade agreements. Its not that they integrate better, but they lack the leverage to negotiate and thus become dependent on the whims of larger powers. The only way they can really get their voices heard and protect themselves is by grouping together into large trading blocks. The United States already provides our various cities with a very powerful trading block; why break it up?

Quote :

"This competition of smaller, regional governments to attract and keep taxpaying residents and productive businesses should tend to produce more efficient, responsive and accountable government that's less burdensome and oppressive."

How is this different from states currently battling each other for new factories and industrial development initiatives?

Quote :

"I could see California breaking off before Alaska. For one thing there has been several occasions of conflicting stances btw state and federal law. For instance medical marijuana"

Of course California's clashed with the Federal government. Every state has clashed with the Federal government at one point or another, but then again, pretty much every provincial government has clashed with their central government over one issue or the other. Do disagreements over small issues like medical marijuana really make up enough reason in the minds of Californians to sever relations with the rest of the country? I find that hard to believe at this point.

I disagree with how you sliced up the country (I would probably make the midwestern states a separate nation), but that's a trivial point compared to the larger question. First, I want to point out that the disruptions created by breaking up the nation are far greater than you are making it out to be. There are HUGE costs and a lot of real big messes that are involved. How do you divvy up Federal assets, ranging from the UN seat to embassies to nuclear weapons? What happens to all the economic supply lines and logistics that you're disrupting? After all, that airplane line in California depends on parts from nearly every state in the union. We're talking about nearly everything: construction materials, food stuff, industrial equipment, tooling, software development, clothing, and such, just to name a few. What happens to all the existing supplier lines and contracts? How much additional paperwork is going to be required as suddenly millions, if not billions, of formerly domestic contracts become international trade? Whose to say that the future states may very easily fail in trade negotiations? What about strategic geographic resources like the Colorado River which California depends on to feed LA? Shipping along the Mississippi River? Wind, hydro, and other renewable electrical sources? What happens to all those families that will be divided or the millions of potential migrants who may want to flee one state and go to another, moving billions in assets and creating mass economic disruption? This isn't a clean cut along state lines, you're talking about a total economic disruption that could be fatal for nearly every party involved. Does New England produce enough food to feed its entire population, or will they be at the mercy of the South for foodstuffs? Will California be at the mercy of foreign nations for something as simple as excavators and tractors? Will they depend on trade or perhaps will they be forced to setup their own redundant industries, destroying the advantages we had in economics of scale?

Also, given how simplified the whole "red state/blue state" argument is, especially when you view the county maps, would cutting up the country really make a whole lot of difference? Even if NC broke off as a separate country, you're still going to have conflicts between liberal hippies in Chapel Hill versus the rednecks of the coast plains and everyone in between. Or do we break up North Carolina too into smaller and smaller pieces, perhaps by county or even neighborhood lines? When will it be small enough to be satisfactory?

[Edited on September 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : .]

9/2/2008 3:09:02 PM

a country of you, prepare to be annexed

9/2/2008 5:55:54 PM

LOL

9/2/2008 8:55:14 PM

I can't claim to have read the whole thread, but here's my bit:

Quote :

"Aren't there too many conflicting groups and interests fighting over the same goverment?"

Few people think so, educated and otherwise. From what I remember of social psychology, my instructor in that class was gorgeous. Well, that, and also that greater variation of ideas in a group tends to produce a better end result than lesser variation.

Take, for example, the current administration. At this point, even most avowed neocons probably think we'd be better off as a nation if there was some ideology represented in the administration besides neoconservatism. As it is, Bush started off pretty homogeneous and removed voices of even slight dissent to perfect it.

Also, when all of the different voices are within a nation, you get discourse. This is good for two main reasons:

1) Good ideas occasionally come out of discourse. In October '62 there was some pretty heated discourse between different camps in the Kennedy administration. The result was a compromise between courses of action that ultimately would have had disastrous results. If JFK's advisors had all been hawks, we'd have almost certainly had a nuclear war right then and there. If they'd all been doves, we'd have rolled over and lost foreign policy momentum in a way that would likely have backed us into a corner where sooner or later we would have had a weaker position in a nuclear war. Discourse was good there.

2) When you split the different ideas into separate national identities, you don't get discourse. You get the alternative when two opposing ideologies meet: you fight. I don't mean "Protestors getting tear gassed" fight, I mean "PRCali tanks are blitzkrieging the Western Independent Alliance." In 230 years, different ideological factions in the US have had a war once. On the continent of Europe, they have fought:

The French Revolution
The Napoleonic Wars
WWI
WWII
The Winter War
The Spanish Civil War
The Russian Civil War

Those are just the ones I thought could reasonable be described as having a major ideological component.

Quote :

"A lot of the dumb things that big countries do would simply be impossible for a small country."

How do you figure? Many European countries are quite small, and they've managed to get away with plenty -- including trade restrictions.

Quote :

"Small countries will thus be forced to compete more fiercely over businesses and taxpayers."

International competition can frequently be described simply as "war." This becomes increasingly true of large numbers of smaller countries with no single large power broker or group of power brokers to encourage peace.

9/2/2008 10:01:14 PM

9/2/2008 10:59:57 PM

Quote :

"You get the alternative when two opposing ideologies meet: you fight."

Quote :

"International competition can frequently be described simply as "war.""

The US does have neighbors even now, but I guess your point is effective because we do have a war with Canada or Mexico every generation or so. Oh wait, I'm being told that there have been no hostilities of note between the US and Canada for 194 years and none between the US and Mexico for 160 years..

9/3/2008 12:06:28 PM

Quote :

"The US does have neighbors even now, but I guess your point is effective because we do have a war with Canada or Mexico every generation or so. Oh wait, I'm being told that there have been no hostilities of note between the US and Canada for 194 years and none between the US and Mexico for 160 years.."

That's not a proper comparison with what you're proposing though. The United States has not fought with Mexico or Canada for over a century and a half because American dominance over the continent has been thoroughly established in all arenas. Canada and Mexico may be independent, but they are in no position to directly challenge the United States on any substantial matters, particularly military ones. Thus, there's no reason for the United States to even contemplate waging war with either.

However, what you're proposing is more reminiscent of Europe; not the modern Europe where various multinational organizations are drawing the nations together but of classical 19th century Europe where various states of roughly equal power and influence are playing a very dangerous game of strategic balance. Certainly we can establish trade treaties, defense pacts, and whatnot to bring greater stability, but if you're going through all that trouble, then why bother outright dissolving the Union in the first place? Why not just dramatic government reform instead?

9/3/2008 12:43:37 PM

I haven't read any of this, but I'd point out (if it hasn't been before) that the cultural lines are drawn less on state borders than on metropolitan, suburban, exurban, lines. Ask a guy in Northern California or the Michigan UP if he's a liberal. Ask someone in Austin if he's a Bush supporter.

9/3/2008 1:14:34 PM

Quote :

"However, what you're proposing is more reminiscent of Europe; not the modern Europe where various multinational organizations are drawing the nations together but of classical 19th century Europe where various states of roughly equal power and influence are playing a very dangerous game of strategic balance."

I'm stratching my head to think of any noteworthy European wars between the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars and the outbreak of WWI. 19th century Europe was a pretty peaceful place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899

Excluding, civil wars, the only conflicts really worth mentioning were

1848-1851 First Schleswig War
1853-1856 Crimean War
1864 Second Schleswig War
1866 Austro-Prussian War
1870-1871 Franco-Prussian War

Ok, that's not puppies and daisies, especially if you got killed in one of those littlle wars, but it's not that bad, considering how many countries we're talking about. Besides, four of these involve Germany, and and last time I checked there's no Germany in North America.

9/3/2008 2:05:57 PM

Texas would definitely be America's Germany.

9/3/2008 3:31:07 PM

I don't know. America is more akin to being north america's germany. After all, we did invade all of our neighboring countries at one point in time.

9/3/2008 3:36:57 PM

I'm sure if we sliced America up, one of our successor states would definitely step in to fill the Germany role.

Quote :

"I'm stratching my head to think of any noteworthy European wars between the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars and the outbreak of WWI. 19th century Europe was a pretty peaceful place."

I didn't really word my concerns properly: I was thinking more of how the sort of balance of power politics that marked the continent came to a catastrophic conclusion. Also, you could make a case that the competition overseas to conquer and colonize provided Europe with an "outlet" to play out their aggression without having to resort too often to continental wars.

I would also point out that Europe only truly stabilized to the relatively peaceful and prosperous place it is at today thanks to the combined impact of two world wars and the threat of total annihilation by a third. A divided United States would probably spill a lot of blood before it ever truly stabilized.

9/3/2008 5:49:45 PM

Oh, I didn't notice that Hawaii was a free state. BINGO!1!11!!

9/3/2008 8:07:21 PM

Quote :

"The US does have neighbors even now"

True. Of course, you neglected to finish the quote:

Quote :

"This becomes increasingly true of large numbers of smaller countries with no single large power broker or group of power brokers to encourage peace."

The United States is the single large power broker. There is a clear North American hegemony, and it's called us. The system you propose breaks up that hegemony, and more importantly, it does so along ideological lines. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have different prevailing viewpoints, but all three have a healthy mix within their borders.

Never mind the fact that the United States were engaged in hostilities in Mexico in the 20th Century, or maybe Pancho Villa escaped your notice.

Quote :

"I'm stratching my head to think of any noteworthy European wars between the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars and the outbreak of WWI. 19th century Europe was a pretty peaceful place."

So for a hundred years, Europe managed not to have any wars, except, of course, for all those wars you mentioned. It's pretty sad that "a century without any really huge wars" is a big accomplishment to you.

Quote :

"Besides, four of these involve Germany, and and last time I checked there's no Germany in North America."

Aside from the fact that more Americans claim German descent than any other, it's worth pointing out that there are reasons Germany ended up in wars all the time -- reasons that you are attempting to recreate in your deconstructed U.S.

Germany, which was a logical nation-state, was broken up into a large number of small kingdoms, cities, duchies, etc. until the late 1800s. Sounds kinda like your plan, right -- take a country that makes perfect sense, break it up into itty bitty ones? What happened in Germany is exactly what would happen here -- states with the ability to do so will absorb others until a "natural" nation-state exists. In Germany's case, it was Prussia, which was the actor you generally (and inaccurately) refer to as "Germany." Prussia fought a series of wars to unify the country. The same would likely happen here.

9/4/2008 4:18:12 PM

How about Republica del Norte for the Southwest?

http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm

9/4/2008 8:59:08 PM