De-Central Station (Shrinking the Government)
Alright political thinkers, heres your challenge:
You are tasked with developing a path which leads away from U.S. Government expansion and global unification towards smaller systems of governmental power and authority. Can this be done? What are the challenges and (more importantly) what are possible solutions to such challenges?
Part of the difficulty for many here is going to be what this is NOT about.
- This isnt a question about states rights as they currently exist this is an opportunity to reinvent them.
- This isnt about partisan politics or personal philosophical preferences. This is an attempt at internal structural improvement (Soup to nuts, constitution to social institutions).
- This isnt a go-around to bring about some ulterior motive (the reinstitution of slavery, the forever banishment of Trump, various utopian fantasies, etc.).
The task is simple: You are in charge of halting the current national trajectory, breaking apart the existing political/governmental structure, and devising a system of localized authorities which can both function as various entities and exist (and flourish) within the current and future global community.
1. The current system is unfrozen, all forms of economics, culture, military, and culture/society are now available for reconstruction.
2. The new system must be organized from the old (No "magic", alien technology, or other cheats allowed).
3. The new system must be sustainable and preferable to the current federal powerbase structure.
Though this is mainly focused on the United States, ideas concerning other countries and similar thought experimentation are certainly welcome.
It is not necessary to have a completed political theory, individual ideas are perfectly acceptable.
If I need to clarify rules, I can . . . but as long as were in the ballpark of the mission I think freeform would be more entertaining.
Let's see what we come up with. Good luck.
You are tasked with developing a path which leads away from U.S. Government expansion and global unification towards smaller systems of governmental power and authority. Can this be done? What are the challenges and (more importantly) what are possible solutions to such challenges?
Part of the difficulty for many here is going to be what this is NOT about.
- This isnt a question about states rights as they currently exist this is an opportunity to reinvent them.
- This isnt about partisan politics or personal philosophical preferences. This is an attempt at internal structural improvement (Soup to nuts, constitution to social institutions).
- This isnt a go-around to bring about some ulterior motive (the reinstitution of slavery, the forever banishment of Trump, various utopian fantasies, etc.).
The task is simple: You are in charge of halting the current national trajectory, breaking apart the existing political/governmental structure, and devising a system of localized authorities which can both function as various entities and exist (and flourish) within the current and future global community.
1. The current system is unfrozen, all forms of economics, culture, military, and culture/society are now available for reconstruction.
2. The new system must be organized from the old (No "magic", alien technology, or other cheats allowed).
3. The new system must be sustainable and preferable to the current federal powerbase structure.
Though this is mainly focused on the United States, ideas concerning other countries and similar thought experimentation are certainly welcome.
It is not necessary to have a completed political theory, individual ideas are perfectly acceptable.
If I need to clarify rules, I can . . . but as long as were in the ballpark of the mission I think freeform would be more entertaining.
Let's see what we come up with. Good luck.
Comments (52)
Feels to me like you broadened the problem. This is too big for me to even attempt.
Fair enough, happy to hear your thoughts if you change your mind.
That's a problem for me, since a) I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be; I don't see any way to reverse the process at this stage of dissolution. Maybe there has been no way back since Lincoln's decision to go to war... or even earlier, from the framing of the constitution and b) I can only envisage a workable solution on the global scale. (and c) I doubt any solutions is possible in the current climate)
I understand, and that's a lot of good stuff to think about. Do you mind if I ask you what you think is likely to happen next given our actual situation as you see it?
Can elaborate on what sense in whcih you think this is the case? cause, like.. they are the United States?
Sadly, either civil war or fascist-style dictatorship... unless... either the military step in, and I can't see where that goes, or climatic disasters or nuclear war put paid to the whole shebang. I don't see it as an American problem: the whole world is mad with closing panic.
Quoting AmadeusD
It's just a name. The states haven't been united since the drawing of the Mason-Dixon line. Some federal governments, in some economic climates were able to hold it together more effectively than others, but in the last 40 years - since Reagan - the divide has been growing wider, while other rifts have been opening up. I see no way to reconciliation.
It seems like what you are asking for is a plan for devolution. There are factors (not necessarily means that are under anyone's control) that could lead to both devolution of the US Government's highly centralized function, and lead away from world unification.
First, the US Government is very large, very powerful, and very strong as a result of its history. The 50 states amount to a very large land mass, a very large population, and a very large economy--all with complex needs which have to be managed.
The key to devolution is decline and simplification of the world economy. Let's say that various factors --global heating, catastrophic agricultural failures, rising oceans, desertification, a failure of the Atlantic Ocean / Gulf Stream system, and population collapse all occur (there is a good chance that they will, at some point).
Given a severe decline in global economic activity, the necessity--or ability--of the U.S. Government to maintain its role in keeping shipping free and open would fade. The decline in global economic activity nears a deckle in American economic activity too. The US will experience severe climate-related changes like every other country.
The US economy will be considerably reduced, and all government levels in the US will be negatively affected. The ability to deliver will be reduced at the same time that the need for government service will spike (owing to severe climate changes).
I didn't "devise the path" of devolution through climate change; we all did that ourselves. However, we could speed up devolution by reducing government size and function before we are forced to by severe fiscal constraints. Isolationism is much cheaper than internationalism.
Similarly, regions of the US can be allowed/encouraged/forced to solve their problems themselves. Two examples: The states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes have formed a binding Compact agreeing to not allow transfers of water from from the Great Lakes system for any purpose. So, water can not be pumped out of Lake Michigan to provide water for a Wisconsin community outside of the Lake Michigan watershed. No water for Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, or Arizona, either. States in the Southwest have agreements for using the Colorado River. They will have to figure out how to divide up more water than there is in the Colorado watershed.
States dependent on the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri Rivers for water and transportation might decide on a restrictive compact. This would give Louisiana, for instance, protection from up-river states selling Mississippi River water to Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas (and beyond).
The Federal Government could leave it up to these three regions to solve their water problems.
I don't recommend devolution! It's a bad idea, but the world may be forced to become less centralized and more localized as the world economy declines under the burden of global heating,
Heavy, but very well written! I too have serious misgivings about the future. I think, in part, that's why this topic interests me. I look around and see a lot of potential and a lot to work with. You mentioned the Civil War a few times, and the division in modern America. Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous? Given a shift in attention from the national to the local, would that change the math at all for you?
I particularly enjoyed your focus on the environmental factors. It never feels like we put enough focus on them (the substantial realities in planning).
I can imagine 8 or so separate regional 'nations' working in some kind of uneasy trade and diplomatic relationship - so long as the populations are allowed free movement, so that people can find where they belong.
Quoting Elysium House
Yes, I think it might. The federal departments would have to be dismantled, which could not possibly done without disruption, and there is a huge problem with distributing resources, transportation, utilities and services. It would certainly not be easy, but I think there are enough brains and technology in America to get it done... if it were possible first to demilitarize police forces and neutralize the most toxic political elements. I can't see a way to that.
The first question is, how does one get the powerful to part with their power? Either they have some form of moral epiphany which propels them to do it voluntarily* or through violent revolution.
In a nutshell, it would require a revolution and a complete rebuilding of the system from scratch, basically like what happened when the US was founded. And then the circus and the slow process of power centralization and corruption simply starts over, because, again, that simply is the nature of man, power and power structures.
*which actually seems more unlikely under a democractic system than under an autocratic system, because of the number of people it would involve.
Quoting Elysium House
Sure. All states have a chance to be successfully self-governing and communally prosperous. I wouldn't count on it, however.
It's hard to predict how devolution and environmentally disadvantageous conditions will play out. There is a very good chance of population reduction (not voluntary--nature might decide to lighten the load). The standard of living could be well above the minimal survival level, say that of about 1890. People won't like it at first, but at the time, people were happy with it. A well-maintained outhouse just isn't that bad. If it's not well maintained, it's just a shit hole.
The really big problem is that everywhere, everybody now depends on an integrated world economy. That's likely to decline a lot. That means people will have to operate within much smaller networks of trade groups, like: The West Coast trade group; the Upper Midwest Trade Area; the New England-Mid Atlantic trading block, and so on.
The world used to operate that way before world trade and globalizing became the paradigm.
We are accustomed to blueberries in January (Peru); bananas always (various countries); melon in March, Strawberries in November, and so on. Great coffee everywhere all the time. That will probably come to a screeching halt. Tomatoes in December? IF you have enough green houses and wind/solar power. Bread, probably. Meat. Probably -- but like as not grass raised. Better that way (it does taste better), but quantity would be less generous. Milk? Maybe. The cows need to get pregnant. (No calves, no milk.). Dairy requires on-going herd growth. How much feed will farmers be able to afford in the winter?
A big question is whether the people within a given state will be able to get along with each other under difficult circumstances--never mind getting along with THOSE PEOPLE in THAT states.
Some states have better communal tendencies than others. Northern tier states tend to do better in collective action through government (at any level) than states in the south.
The path for US government will be bi-directional according to this principle, a devolving of power to state and on to local government on the one hand, and and submission to, and support of, global organisation - the UN, court of Human rights, and other multi national bodies on the other.
Edit: another principle should also be to set a limit to the number of governing bodies having jurisdiction over anyone to - say - 5: global, (sub?)continental, state, county, and parish for example. [One more or less might be arguable.]
I fear that a political solution would not work. The power of government is illegitimate to begin with. It functions on monopoly and plunder. Taking power in such an institution requires one to wield illegitimate power against his fellows, something my own conscience could not bear.
A rapid abolition of any kind would be cruel to the unweaned, those who view the government as the solution to all their problems and rely on it to subsidize their lives. Generations of people who were raised under the auspices of that promise could be met with troubles I would wish on no one, like poverty, once they found themselves responsible for their own lives and communities. They would view you as if you killed their god and resentment would grow.
In my view the reversal of nanny government would occur naturally in tandem with a decline in statism, which is the defining belief of our age. The power and reach of the church, for instance, declined only as people stopped attending, participating, and believing in its authority.
Their revenue base is small and uncertain; they would have to depend too heavily on big business, which, in turn, would exert too much influence. Which is already the case in many jurisdictions.
Quoting unenlightened
I can't see Americans doing that. So far, they've resisted any submission to any international agreement.
The best solution, of course, would be blanket electoral and legislative reform. De-politicize the judiciary and law-enforcement. Separate state and church in fact, rather than theory. Enforce freedom of the press. Abolish the electoral college, lobbying and PACs. In fact, take financial patronage out of the process entirely; fund elections publicly and equally. (And forchrissake set a time limit on the damn things - the way things are, governance is one neverending political rally.) Bring in UN election oversight, as you might for any failed state trying to regain political stability, in order to prevent fraud and accusations of fraud.
Once you had legitimate, uncontested representative government - at all levels - they could go one to streamline and reorganize their agencies in a rational manner.
What are the odds of that happening in this dimension?
I think this would be key. When I mentioned experimentation before, I was thinking along these lines. Differing individual strategies (state level or otherwise) that can still organize into local trade/commerce partnerships while maintaining cultural independence. The citizens of Maine focused on Maine instead of Nebraska, keeping an eye on basic economic needs and allowing for citizens to feel like they actually have a say in their government/future (as opposed to the apathy and hopelessness many seem to feel about our current political setup). Different political ideologies could be put to the test, and we could let the results speak for themselves . . . but that requires the ability for people to take their hands off of the wheel for other states/regional nations and overlook many standards/ethics they may detest while still maintaining some peaceful cohesion. Tricky business!
Quoting Vera Mont
What would a demilitarized police force look like compared to now? These toxic political elements, can you describe what you are referring to so I have a better picture?
I can certainly understand and sympathize with this. I wouldnt trust anyone who held little or no genuine concern for future generations. The situation is certainly heating up (no pun intended . . . well, some pun intended).
Quoting BC
I know this is weird . . . but I would love this. I feel like a cranky coot, but coming back to the internet after a long absence has been eye-opening. I think Im now pretty much an aspiring luddite!
Quoting BC
This is something many (if not most) would wholly reject. Goodbye modern convenience/luxury! I would like to see a renewed focus on domestic production of basic goods though. Feels unsettling to be so dependent on others for lifes basics.
Quoting BC
Youre right, thats a major problem. Scarcity will drive many to lawlessness (regardless of the particular local law).
Quoting Tzeentch
Youve nailed a central issue were going to have to deal with, thank you for bringing it up. Part of what were talking about is a kind of power that is hard to find anywhere else in history, and both sides believe the other will use it for evil, so no one wants to put their gun down first (which is reasonable considering the reality of the situation at hand).
Quoting Tzeentch
Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften moral epiphany to a kind of rock bottom moment of clarity or is the addiction going to take us all the way down?
It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests.
Quoting Elysium House
Oh, you know, regular death- and rape-threats against jurists and journalists; voter intimidation, gun lobby.... and, of course
A revolution is usually the reaction to hitting a form of rock bottom. The problem is, the citizens will always hit rock bottom long before the elite will, and thus the motivation for radical change won't come from the elite.
Moreover, once such a stage has been reached, the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. As such, the leadership is incentivized to struggle until the very end.
I'm open to hearing examples that suggest otherwise. Maybe there are situations I am not considering.
Also, the "moral epiphany" isn't as unrealistic as one might think. History has known many great reformers who voluntarily ceded parts of their power to better govern their states. However, the larger the decision-making group at the top, the smaller the chance that it will consist of enough wise individuals who could push for such a move. Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems.
Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative.
So individual states can, and do, pursue independent policies in areas which do not infringe on the prerogatives of the Federal Government. Plenty of contention around the intention, of course.
At any rate, there is a way open for state governments to accomplish some levels of decentralization -- way short of succession. Maine and Nebraska can pursue an all-renewable energy policy. They can establish health-care-for-all for their residents. They can decide to teach German in their schools from kindergarten through college. They can tax and spend to their heart's content, and they can run miserly budgets and starve the public sector. They can do various things -- but they can't do foreign policy, interfere with interstate trade, and so on.
Police forces generally are constituted locally -- organized, supervised, and paid for locally. That hasn't prevented problems.
Agreed, the police rarely, if ever, need the armaments the Defense Department wants to get rid of--Tanks, helicopters, heavy fire power, etc.
The function of policing pretty much requires a license to search, seize, and destroy -- but very much within the law, with court issued warrants, close civil oversight, and so on. Policing neighborhoods to quiet down late-night noisy parties is one thing; taking down criminal enterprises in a state is something else altogether.
In the real world there are, and will be, vested interests which should and are going to get protection. I want the police to protect my house protected from arsonists and burglars; business owners want thieves arrested; transit users don't want crime taking place on buses and trains; drivers don't want to see drunks on the road. Most people, whatever their economic status, object to rioting, looting, destruction of infrastructure just for the hell of it.
Peaceful protests (with a permit if they plan on marching down a major thoroughfare) breaking up strikes -- authorized or not, and the like interfere with civil liberties and alienate law enforcement (national guard, highway patrol, city police, sheriffs, etc.) from large groups of people.
I have mixed thoughts (and feelings) about homeless encampments. On the one hand, homelessness should not be criminalized. Neither should abject poverty be treated as criminal, in itself. On the other hand, we should 'tolerate' neither homelessness nor abject poverty, for several reasons:
a) homeless encampments are not a good thing for the homeless.
b) homelessness is not a lifestyle. It's a disaster.
c) many of the homeless are there because of significant problems -- drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness--maybe all three. They need residential treatment and housing,
d) homeless encampments become public health problems -- not by their mere existence, but because of public urination, dedication, drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, et al.
e. It isn't that nobody can figure out what to do about the homeless. What is missing is the will to do it -- yes, to shove it down the throats of various neighborhoods that don't want multiunit housing of any kind, especially not THOSE PEOPLE.
Cities used to have housing for chronic alcoholics, broken people, the immigrated elderly, etc. It was called "skid row", "the slum", "SROs (single room occupancy 'hotels'), and the like. All of it was low grade, sub-standard housing, BUT it provided off-street housing for a very low cost. States also once had large state hospitals which provided readily accessible residential treatment. Great places? No, but then, psych wards in the best hospitals are not where most people want to spend more than few minutes.
We don't have to go back to skid row housing, but something like SRO housing WITH services (basic needs as well as treatment) would go a long way to solve the problem.
Some cities have too many homeless to depend on any one solution. Mid-sized cities like Minneapolis could solve a lot of its homeless encampment problems with SROs. (It would have to create them; they tore all of them down decades ago.) Major cities like Los Angeles are going to need every available option.
A guaranteed income would go a long way to solve the abject poverty problem.
So, I'm against homeless encampments but am willing to spend public dollars to provide long-term shelter solutions.
So true! As would more resources allocated to low-income housing, welfare, health and other and social services, as would curbing the power of property speculators and moneylenders.
Making the police deal with societal problems with force turns them into villains instead of protectors and attracts the wrong kind of people to policing.
Fair enough, so lets start chipping away
Quoting NOS4A2
Is this broken citizen a permanent fixture doomed to failure and the production of multiple future failures? Does potential exist within them, and can it be ignited? Keep in mind, this thought experiment affords you a wide variety of methods to reshape the game board, even if such methods seem wildly unrealistic in the current system. Are you sure you dont want to take a swing? I would like to see a system that doesnt function on monopoly and plunder as well, so paint it for me!
Quoting NOS4A2
As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state?
Quoting Vera Mont
Thank you for clarifying! When considering the formation of separate mini-states (or regional groups), how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? If it is the US Gov, then we havent we expanded the state to move your rules across state lines (and failed the project)? Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues youve mentioned?
Quoting Tzeentch
But what about a new leadership, say one that was locally harvested and directly connected to the wellbeing of their citizens/ruling territory? Such a scenario is possible in this thought experiment.
Quoting Tzeentch
In this scenario, you have the ability to alter economics, war/defense, government, and (even if just by extension) society/culture. Even if your propositions are unlikely, if it is technically possible (given the totality of human potential and existing infrastructure) you can be as creative as you want so long as the end result is preferable to the current/future state.
Quoting Tzeentch
No arguments from me on this.
Quoting Tzeentch
Let's try to avoid that then.
Quoting BC
Heres another area were going to be forced to examine: What if it is necessary to go around (dissolve, restrict, reinvent) the Federal Gov? If you can only prevent disaster, civil war, and/or global catastrophe by doing so does it not become the most logical/ethical pathway?
Quoting BC
This is certainly true, though were tied together through government taxation, elections, and international behavior. For example, the immigration policy of blue states (and their political leadership) drastically impacts red states as well (some could argue, in the case of Texas, far more). The majority of Illinois or Indiana may be against backing Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan in this or that conflict, but it is America that ultimately goes in and theyll be dragged along with it. All this is to say that we do have license to experiment, but to a very limited degree considering national constraints and the bleed over from one local culture to the other of differing methods. If these constraints are good, if the experimentation is working, then the end result of restricted plurality seems to be an increasingly volatile unified state.
Quoting BC
Hear Hear!
I don't desire it, but many of the citizens would, so of course it has to be allowed scope. In my experience, the period of liberal ecumenicalism of the late 60's and early 70's worked pretty well. There was a proliferation of break-away congregations for the deaf, with folk music, etc. Such a tolerant environment can only exist in a prosperous and optimistic period.
Quoting Elysium House
I'll have to give that some thought - after having a birthday drink with my SO. Might be a while....
Quoting Elysium House
For me, the preferred overseer would be the the World Court, under UN auspices. Not only is their [url]
declaration of human rights completely acceptable, but this would also insure parity and co-operation among police forces. Next best candidate would be Interpol.
Quoting Elysium House
Differently, yes. Inhumanley, no.
My starting position is pro-government (federal, state, county, municipal, township), while granting that government (and any human organization) will generally embody the flaws of their constituents, sooner or later. Civil War would be an unmitigated disaster for this country -- it is generally a disaster wherever it happens. Only through a peaceful, sweeping, popular socialist revolution could the central government be dissolved. There is no chance oof such a revolution occurring in the foreseeable future.
A democracy of workers could/should be organized as a decentralized democracy. in this democratic socialist arrangement, Marx's dictum "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" would be the rule. All problems would not disappear by any stretch of the imagination (it isn't intended to be a utopia), and people on the ground where the problems occurred would have to work out solutions.
Industrial democracy, democratic socialism, the withered state, the fair distribution of resources (based on need) ARE certainly UTOPIAN in flavor, if not in fact. In the very long meantime before we reach utopia, we are stuck with the state, with capitalism, et al. That's the framework we are doomed to work within, I don't like it, but I don't see any way around it.
Fascism is, of course, another possibility. Let's home that it does not become a reality in any way, shape, manner, or form.
But at least they'd get a chance to do it! People can do this; they have done this. Sure, there will be disruptive elements to deal with; there will be attempts at corruption to guard against; competition and aggression will have to be given constructive outlets; conflict between individuals will need mediation; resources must be distributed fairly; the young must be guided... People have done all of these things successfully when they were free to find their own solutions.
Quoting BC
I'm very much afraid several of its forms are looming on the horizon.
Ditto.
Actually, the US has far too many states. Put them together.
- First of all, fuck Washington DC. That the Capitol is so "important" is pure bullshit. Add it to Maryland, actually make Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey one state for starters.
- The objective could be to have just 20 states that are somewhat equally distributed in population.
- Decrease the number of Federal executive departments and give the control 100% to the states. You need only State, Defense, Interior and Justice departments. Nothing else. So off with the executive departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban development, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. And if even the States start to whine about their excessive new work and demand federal level coordination, then simply put them into the department of Interior. It's incredible that you have to have such departments like Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security at the level of a federal executive department.
- Emphasize and empower the county/municipial level.
- reduce the police state.
The problematic aspect of your lament over the dissolution of state's rights was that the war that formally drew them legally bound together under the same Constitution was not one fought for any lofty principle. It was fought to protect the institution of slavery by a confederacy that did nothing to try to protect the individual state rights within its confederacy. It's just that South wanted its own slave protecting laws for its region and so it went to war.
As to the division between the left and the right, that geographical division is best defined not by drawing a line somewhere north of Maryland and meandering south of Missouri, but instead by drawing circles around major metropolitan areas and leaving out suburban and urban areas. The Atlantans, for example, probably won't be fighting alongside their suburban neighbors to the north.
Since Americans have no particular allegiance to certain state lands, as if someone would proclaim they will fight and die for the great state of Iowa or the like, the insurgents would be left fighting over ideology alone, unattached to any love of land. In the Civil War, ideology was attached to land, as it was the slaves who were fueling that economy in that region. So, if the right or the left wants to fight a civil war, they will have to come from all regions and band together under a unified flag.
In any event, the last great resurrection ended with a handful of crazies getting locked up after storming the Capital.
I don't see how things can be improved through further decentralization. I could certainly see improvements from splitting up the United States, but only in the context of there being regional (e.g. EU, AU) governments with power analogous to that of the federal government in the United States. And ideally, these regional organizations would be organs of a global government.
But, provided we have such a global government, then it seems much more feasible to dissolve the United States and actually improve things. The US and China (and soon, India) with their huge economies and huge share of global votes would probably be a serious barrier to global governance actually, so the two moves would work together.
I had the thread on "Exponential Elector Selection," earlier. I don't know if that's the right mechanism for selecting leaders, but I think you want to keep leaders accountable through some sort of popular selection mechanism, while also doing more to professionalize the leadership than popular vote democracy does.
Particularism will be part of any successful regional/global governance scheme. You need the more global level to deal with collective action problems, corruption, and security, while local entities deal with day to day management.
My what???
Quoting Hanover
Over which???
The states had way too much independence at the time of federation; that's why the southern ones were given that concession to keep slavery in what purported to be a union based on the principle
That, plus the independence states already held from the colonial arrangement, were the fatal flaws that doomed this nation to disunity.
Quoting Hanover
Obviously. However, the fact that they still had slavery in the first place, and were determined to spread it to new territories, which would then outnumber the slaveless states, made war inevitable. Besides, that was the cover story.
Hardly any war is really about its slogans and recruiting cons.
Quoting Hanover
That's not how it originally happened; that's just how it plays out with the opposing powers: upward mobility and education vs economic morbidity and facile propaganda.
Quoting Hanover
Each civil war is different. They're not 'insurgencies'; they're popular uprisings over unbearable oppression or mismanagement, or irreconcilable differences over religion, or factions supporting two or more bidders for the seat of government, or - indeed, ideological rifts too deep to bridge. Oddly enough, this next one may well have a genuine element of states rights in some cases, depending on whether a truly egregious far right regime takes federal power.
Quoting Hanover
And you think that made them and their "cause" disappear?
Quoting Hanover
Why was slavery important enough to fight and to secede over? Money! the collective value of all slaves in the US was $4 billion in 1860. That was a substantial share of all wealth in the US at the time. $4 Billion in 1860 would be worth about $143 Billion in 2023 inflated dollars. In today's national indebtedness of $23 Trillion, 143 Billion doesn't seem like it would be worth going to war over. But $4 Billion was a much large amount of money in 1860 than $143 Billion today.
The dollar cost of slave-produced goods (like cotton bales, iron, tobacco, bricks, etc.) was much lower than could be achieved by employing wage labor. There was also a critical social factor: The social and political preeminence of the planter class depended on the profitability of the slave-labor system. They were, of course, loathe to relinquish their high-status, powerful position.
The south was in fact suspicious of federal power. For that matter, many in the southern states were suspicious of any centralized power, within and between states. Consequently, canals and railroads were built mostly within state boundaries, rather than across state lines. Many canals were built to benefit one or two plantations, rather than a larger area.
The Civil war forced the states in the confederacy to build networks of regional railroad and telegraph lines.
Quoting Hanover
Spell Czech apparently preferred "resurrection" over "insurrection"? It never explains it's preferences!
Instant fail! Just kidding, I'm listening . . .
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
It's good we're thinking more broadly and with more creativity here. Keep "exploring the space."
Quoting ssu
Careful: The object of the game is to minimize the government AND create a new system that is preferable. The sins of the transition will not be lost on the people, and their happiness and approval is necessary for your system to be proven the better.
Quoting ssu
Let's definitely analyze your approach to this process. What's your strategy on this so far?
Quoting ssu
Do you have crossover standards (that each new state would have to adhere to) for what this would entail? Who polices this?
I'm giving you points for moxie so far, but remember what it means to "win" this thought experiment.
Bonus question: Who decides on the state lines/territory divisions?
The problem with a new division of the country is finding the right basis to draw boundaries. Cultural, industrial, and agricultural similarities may not overlap. For instance, Minnesota and Massachusetts have much more in common culturally than Minnesota and Louisiana do. Both may be agricultural producers, but are otherwise not very similar economically, culturally, or sociologically.
It's a fun game to play, and there is certainly some validity to some of the arrangements. But there are mistakes to make too. Garreau's identification of the Rocky Mountains as "The Empty Quarter" overlooks the large agricultural and industrial establishment of Alberta, Canada.
BC, first, thank you for the reading recommendation. I am a bookworm and always looking for more. Please understand, this discussion must continue. It is about creativity, not appeal to authority. You have clearly voiced your concerns. Please, try to have fun (if, at least, just in this discussion).
Did he also shove Labrador and Newfoundland in with New England? I doubt it. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, maybe. What have Iowa, Oklahoma and Ontario have in common? No, the geography is all screwed up. I don't exactly understand the second map. All those areas - well, everywhere, really! - can expect to undergo changes, many of which are unpredictable. Not to mention the flood of climate and economic refugees pushing right up through the middle with not enough water or food, getting shot at and no way to retreat.
It may be a fun game to play today, but the main driver of actual events will not be politics but nature.
Garreau published the book in 1981; some of his identifications--like The Foundry--were already out of date. His "foundry" had been turning into the rust belt it is today. I'm not sure how familiar Garreau was with the geography of some of the country. His point, though, is worth considering: Various areas of the US have affinities with each other that are not represented by state boundaries.
He (or some one else, can't remember the name) identified a band of "yankee culture" running west from New England to the upper Midwest created by migration from the east to the west. Within this band citizens expect the state to serve as a vehicle for positive social change through health and education, for instance, Welfare benefits are generous in this band, and firearm deaths tend to be among the lowest in the country most of the time -- much lower than New Orleans, for example.
In a number of southern states, the role of the state is much more constrained.
Dixie isn't as homogeneous as it used to be, and the southern breadbasket area belongs with the south -- culturally and demographically.
and so on...
I view reorganizing the map as a game -- not as a serious enterprise. Some states could merge, I think (the Dakotas for instance) and some states could split -- Californians have talked about a three way split for years. But what makes CA a powerhouse is the varied economic zones within the state and a huge population. Some states have both a large agriculture sector and an equally large urban business sector. The combination helps states (like some Midwestern states) weather fluctuations in economic conditions better.
I've always been in full agreement with that. The same is true of Canada. The prairie provinces have more in common with the prairie states, geographically, economically, in demographics, religious and political conservatism, than they have with Ontario, Quebec* or the west coast. The west and north-east coasts also have more south-north affinity than east-west.
Obviously, I have a huge problem with Canada joining the vastly more powerful US, because our political and judicial systems would be subsumed by what I consider a badly designed and damaged arrangement. However, if self-defined regional governments were re-invented from the ground up, all of them might work better than they do now.
*Far beyond any chance of reunion with the Francophile American population; they've taken very different paths, neither of them boring, I'll give 'em that!
Yes, it is an interesting thought-experiment. Forces us to think about how people actually live and think; what might benefit them, what they would prefer.... Besides, whatever solution precludes armed violence is preferable. But we have to be aware that all those firearms and all those long-smouldering hostilities do exist and will not be denied.
The UN declaration is better. And the US doesn't agree to most UN treaties either.
Absolutely. That's one of the main things you need the higher level "global" state for, securing rights.
I don't know what you mean about China. In its current form, it's hard to imagine the Chinese establishment agreeing [I]with[/I] a bill of rights that would enshrine free speech protections.
Unfortunately, your most powerful players, those best able to foster the emergence of some sort of global governance, are also those with the largest incentive to avoid the formation of such a thing.
That's what I meant. Chinese leadership won't buy into a world government with rights like Vera Mont linked, so it seems the whole thing is DOA until China reforms.
This book is available on Archive.org if anyone is looking.
https://archive.org/search?query=The+nine+nations
I think you have to have an account and login to read for free. Started getting into it this morning and you're right, it's pretty good so far. Thanks again!
And Russia reforms and the US reforms. They won't do it voluntarily, not any of 'em. So they'd have to break up - very probably thorough violent conflict - before any kind of re-forming can take place. Which really does not bode well for the world.
Wait a minute. The USSR collapsed peacefully, after which Russia went through a period of deformation, then reformation, now deformation again. Is reform the next stop?
China recovered from the Cultural Revolution of Mao, and with the non-violent help of the US, became a manufacturing and infrastructure building giant. Hundred of millions are better off now than they were. I don't like Xi, but he won't live forever. the US has carried out reforms. Civil Rights, establishing the EPA (under Nixon), improved infrastructure, establishing the principle of 1 person/one vote (1962) principle, and so on.
I have seen no proof presented that breaking up large nation-states is an unalloyed good or even slightly helpful.
Do not overestimate the changes here. For example in Finland we have had municipalities and districts put together and made larger, but the changes to the bureaucracy isn't as radical as one could anticipate. The basic result often is that some bureaucratic service you need that once was close by, now is somewhere really far away. That's basically what happens from the viewpoint of the citizen.
You can have some reductions. But do not forget that a working government is also beneficial and there usually are those who want to abuse the changes in their own benefit even if it worsens the situation of the people in general: Reducing government is usually one way to benefit the rich.
Interesting. Of course there's a bit of ironic twist here: In order to have states being put together, meaning that many state employees would lose jobs and many states capitals would lose their position, you need a very strong Federal level. Because who else would make such decisions? The States themselves?
Also what is an interesting question is how much does the state mean to US Citizen? Let's take for example the "South Central" mega-state: How much people in Texas feel as Texans while how many Oklahomans or people from New Mexico think their state is important? Because I assume Texas, with it's different history of even being basically independent for a time means a lot to Texans.
I assume it's far more easier to close and integrate federal departments than to "take away" Texas from the Texans.
When pigs fly... Hell, no! None of them will peacefully reform any time soon, to any kind of new configuration in which they would willingly surrender any of their autonomy. World powers don't: they even remake their gods in the image of their own mortal rulers.
Quoting BC
No human endeavour is unalloyed, even less any that involve large numbers of people. China may be unified in its suppression of minorities and its expansionist ambition - I have no inside information on that. Russia doesn't seem to be at peace within itself, nor all of the same mind as to its 'foreign policy'. And the United States is most definitely not united atm.