Splitting the United States into separate Republics

[Mars]

Here's a WSJ article from 2009 that discusses the topic: Link

 

A notable prophet for a coming age of smallness was the diplomat and historian George Kennan, a steward of the American Century with an uncanny ability to see past the seemingly-frozen geopolitical arrangements of the day. Kennan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he predicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was getting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, he suggested that a similar fate might await the United States. America has become a “monster country,” afflicted by a swollen bureaucracy and “the hubris of inordinate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy.” Things might work better, he suggested, if the nation was “decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.”

 

I sometimes wonder if splitting the country into separate Republics would be the best course of action for the future. My opinion is that most government should be handled at the state level. Splitting up the the United States would put an end to the massive military industrial complex and the massive government expansion that has occurred in the last century.

 

I wonder if, centuries from now, the world will be split into hundreds of small nations rather than a one world nation.

 

Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

[Ziggy]

Here's a WSJ article from 2009 that discusses the topic: Link

 

A notable prophet for a coming age of smallness was the diplomat and historian George Kennan, a steward of the American Century with an uncanny ability to see past the seemingly-frozen geopolitical arrangements of the day. Kennan always believed that Soviet power would “run its course,” as he predicted back in 1951, just as the Cold War was getting under way, and again shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed, he suggested that a similar fate might await the United States. America has become a “monster country,” afflicted by a swollen bureaucracy and “the hubris of inordinate size,” he wrote in his 1993 book, “Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy.” Things might work better, he suggested, if the nation was “decentralized into something like a dozen constituent republics, absorbing not only the powers of the existing states but a considerable part of those of the present federal establishment.”

 

I sometimes wonder if splitting the country into separate Republics would be the best course of action for the future. My opinion is that most government should be handled at the state level. Splitting up the the United States would put an end to the massive military industrial complex and the massive government expansion that has occurred in the last century.

 

I wonder if, centuries from now, the world will be split into hundreds of small nations rather than a one world nation.

 

Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

 

We already have this, its called states. In the Constitution gives a lot of power and control to the states. Sadly, for the past 100 years or so that power has slowly been stripped away piece by piece. But in the end, the states have the power to change and ratify the constitution and if needed can still do so.

[Conga3]

I've read Mar's post several times....and can't make sense of it... :/

[Mars]

We already have this, its called states. In the Constitution gives a lot of power and control to the states. Sadly, for the past 100 years or so that power has slowly been stripped away piece by piece. But in the end, the states have the power to change and ratify the constitution and if needed can still do so.

 

Thank you for stating the obvious. I'm talking about separate nations, divided by cultural, economic, and geographic factors.

 

For example, here's a map of a hypothetical nine nation North America.

 

[Ziggy]

Well you talked about breaking up our nation, one that has lasted over 200 years. We are the United STATES of America. States are already just small countries, which has been lost with the ever growing federal government.

[Mars]

Life is finite. All good things come to an end. What makes you think that the United States of America will last forever?

[knapplc]

Why does this solution have more merit than abolishing statehood altogether and having one single entity, America, with regions instead of states?

 

This is merely one idea among many. Why is it better? Rome was better governed as an Empire than a Republic. In fact, Rome's partisan infighting very much resembles America today. Caesar put an end to it by seizing power and ushering in a period of peace and prosperity. Greece, which never unified under its own power, was a series of civil wars throughout its history, stopped only when Sparta won the Peloponnesian War and later when Alexander finished finished Philips' dream of a unified Greece.

[Mars]

Why does this solution have more merit than abolishing statehood altogether and having one single entity, America, with regions instead of states?

 

This is merely one idea among many. Why is it better? Rome was better governed as an Empire than a Republic. In fact, Rome's partisan infighting very much resembles America today. Caesar put an end to it by seizing power and ushering in a period of peace and prosperity. Greece, which never unified under its own power, was a series of civil wars throughout its history, stopped only when Sparta won the Peloponnesian War and later when Alexander finished finished Philips' dream of a unified Greece.

A nation that abolished statehood and ruled over one single entity - is that any different than what we have now? I think that small nations, divided by economic, cultural, and geographic factors, would be able to better govern themselves than a massive central government and a one size fits all approach.

 

Rome collapsed under the weight of its bureaucracy and military imperialism. Why repeat history when we already know the outcome?

[zoogs]

An empire can't last forever so we should just go ahead and break it up pre-emptively?

 

I think what is more important than anything is to uphold states' rights in the Union and, especially on the public opinion front, combat the idea that the president is a ruler. Federal government overreach and executive power overreach are big problems.

 

Rome covered a *lot* more area in a world where it was a lot more logistically difficult, by the way, and there were plenty of reasons for its downfall. Dividing itself into the Western and Eastern empires didn't save it, though. Although the Byzantine Empire had a good run of it, I guess.

[lo country]

Here is an old article from a former KGB guy that states his theories and new "zones".

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

[knapplc]

Why does this solution have more merit than abolishing statehood altogether and having one single entity, America, with regions instead of states?

 

This is merely one idea among many. Why is it better? Rome was better governed as an Empire than a Republic. In fact, Rome's partisan infighting very much resembles America today. Caesar put an end to it by seizing power and ushering in a period of peace and prosperity. Greece, which never unified under its own power, was a series of civil wars throughout its history, stopped only when Sparta won the Peloponnesian War and later when Alexander finished finished Philips' dream of a unified Greece.

A nation that abolished statehood and ruled over one single entity - is that any different than what we have now? I think that small nations, divided by economic, cultural, and geographic factors, would be able to better govern themselves than a massive central government and a one size fits all approach.

 

Rome collapsed under the weight of its bureaucracy and military imperialism. Why repeat history when we already know the outcome?

Because the Roman Empire lasted for 450 years. We're halfway through that in America's life and you're already saying we should axe the current system. If the Roman Empire has shown that its model can last twice as long as what we have now, why not?

 

As for Rome's inevitable collapse... you said yourself right here that that America will inevitably meet its demise. I agree with you. Even your states-as-nations idea will end. We know this because every empire, oligarchy, potentate and state has eventually collapsed throughout history. The odds aren't in our favor no matter what we do.

 

And the Roman Empire's model of governance is vastly different than what we have today.

[strigori]

Right...having lots of smaller nations will mean less military spending and less Gov....Right....

Every 'nation' would have its own military, and the smaller population ones probably run a mandatory military service. Wars would break out off the bat.

Less gov? Right. Maybe in some areas, others like say Kansas, would have much, much more.

 

What we have now is as stable as any other region on earth. There are no real reasons for a break up. The whole theory thought up by guys in other countries lacks perspective. The first thing the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as is American. People are not quick to throw aside the top of their identity.

[Mars]

An empire can't last forever so we should just go ahead and break it up pre-emptively?

Is that a bad idea? Why fight the inevitable? Why not work out a peaceful transition?

 

 

Here is an old article from a former KGB guy that states his theories and new "zones".

I saw that as well. The midwest falling under Canadian influence? Ha ha.

 

 

If the Roman Empire has shown that its model can last twice as long as what we have now, why not?

How many civil wars are part of that model?

[knapplc]

Inevitably splitting the states into 50 separate nations will lead to more "civil" wars, not less. The Republican River dispute is settled in courts today. With no governing body overseeing the dispute, what's to stop Kansas and Nebraska from going to war over right to the water?

[Mars]

Right...having lots of smaller nations will mean less military spending and less Gov....Right....

Every 'nation' would have its own military, and the smaller population ones probably run a mandatory military service. Wars would break out off the bat.

Less gov? Right. Maybe in some areas, others like say Kansas, would have much, much more.

 

What we have now is as stable as any other region on earth. There are no real reasons for a break up. The whole theory thought up by guys in other countries lacks perspective. The first thing the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as is American. People are not quick to throw aside the top of their identity.

So we shouldn't have separate nations in North America because wars might break out? You realize that Predator drones, a product of the United States of America, are bombing the hell out of women and children in the Middle East right now, right?

 

What makes our lives more sacred than theirs?