Should the United States break-up?
If it did how would it happen, and is there anything to be done to prevent it?
9/24/2020
I have been thinking a lot about Scott Galloway and his lessons. His ideas of breaking up big tech hinges on two things:
1) Oxygenating the market
2) The ability of the spun-off companies to survive.
I have lived my whole life in the United States. My whole family lives here as well.
It is hard to imagine a state of affairs in which I would not be able to see my cousin who lives two states away. Yet in a time of Corona, this very thing has happened. Before entering into a state. I am checking to see what laws, and guidelines they have got. I remember the first time I thought about the United States breaking up. The first time was learning about the civil war of 1861-1865.
The question is hanging in the room of a seventh-grade classroom. If it were to happen once, then it could happen again. These are the way things go. Even in reunification, it was not as if the country was stronger, and more loving after the fact. Many southerners, one half of the civil war, held their flags, and had their own version of history. The so-called. "war of northern aggression."
These thoughts of a country dividing made of people who are unhappy with the system. Fed up with issues that seem insolvable. Corruption, influence, or faults in the system, that seem insurmountable. A breaking up of a large organization gives ideas to the first idea of oxygenation. This fresh air would in the eyes of the people play the critical role oxygen plays in our preparation. Producing the chemistry that drives most of our daily lives.
Slow Governments are slow
I will give credit to the means before of the system that we find ourselves in. The United States system is not meant to move fast. It is a burden-some process that takes years to do anything. Any politician that has been on capitol hill will say the same. Policies they want to get accomplished but have not been able to this term, or the next one.
Where this argument starts to change is in the fact that the turn-over of politicians is vanishing. These sort of arguments are generally made by people who wish to keep the whole thing together. If only there was more turnover in the congress then there would be more legislation passed. Yet, as new people push into office. They meet with a foray of inter-connected constituencies. Political traps that prevent them from getting through. Where more experienced people are more likely to know how to navigate the waters. Getting new laws enacted.
“In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle.”
But this then makes the case for making the pool bigger. If the number of congress people is so small. It is hard to push any sort of legislation through. It would make sense that the only other solution would be to increase the number of congress people.
The Montana rule
So, to explore this idea a bit further let's get the nonsense arguments out of the way. First: well, the building is one size, and adding new seats to the building would be horrible. In the 1850's as new states were being added the capitol building grew. And to counter this point even further. What a great opportunity to give new architects, and builders. The chance to expand upon one of the most famous buildings in the country.
Another argument is that the senate should not add more seats, as we have a bi-cameral congress. And I agree with this, each state has two senators. But the number of representatives has more leeway, and more access to increasing members. So how might this number rise? One such proposal, the Wyoming rule would have a district size be the size of the smallest one in the union.
So if the population of a state was 500,000. Then for every 500,000 people a congress person would isadded. If a state had one-million people it would have two representatives, and so on. If implemented, the smallest state would add one-hundred and twelve members of congress. These increased representatives would have more say. The direction in which the country is going, and what choices it made. Thus a representative government.
Finally: the idea of having more people in government would mean even less gets done. Think how hard it is to move 435 members of congress, think of how hard it will be to move 547. This argument splits into two groups. Number 1, the United states in its current form is the most powerful nation in the history of humanity. More nuclear weapons, and aircrafts would destroy the planet in a few hours. Second. This downplays how powerful the chief executive has become.
Executive orders, hundreds of which get made during a presidential term. Including, but not limited to (using military force). Having more people in the room. Means that the giant united states would make moves with more care. Making the country move slower. Which is what should happen. Take power away from the chief executive.
Big differences in geography
Getting back to the task at hand. Where might the United states break, or fracture. The most obvious place to look is the east coast vs west coast. The difference between them can look different through a few different lenses. The first of which is settlement.
New-England being the first. As the colonizers were coming from the west coast of Europe. It would not become populated until the middle 1800s. By people continuing to cross the plains of the country. Now, it was Joe Rogan who described these as a different group of people. Coming from the old world to the new world is one thing. Continuing across the new world setting up towns and cities is another.
While western towns were being set up, and in some cases abandoned(ghost-towns). Eastern cities including the south were developing larger cities. Upon the South's development into their own cities. The feeling of being their own country took root. Richmond the eventual capital of the new country founded in 1737. One-hundred and twenty three years later. So it is likely the case that if a new country were to develop in the west, that city has already founded.
Which does not give much of a sign to where this splitting might happen. The most natural places to look are through geo-graphical locations. Large features of the planet have often been the place in which countries choose to split. The Rhine river in France, has fought for centuries. The Himalayan mountains are another natural barrier. Looking at the United States map, the Mississippi river would be a prime candidate.
But while this may be the historical way in which things have gone, this does not create a rule. Natural barriers can cross with boats/bridges/and aircrafts in a sufficient enough way. Negates the need for such a thing. Does this negate the need for geographical boundaries? No, population sizes, and resource scarcity are always nagging little bugs. Never going away. Even in our abduent society, with plenty of excess, a few years of mis-management would shut down many roads.
But this still does not give a clear sign of where splits may happen. In the past those with shared ideas were coming from a similar place. Where if we look at a voting map it shows a spread out form of where people may be coming from. Now we can say that voting is not a great form of figuring out the way in which people actually believe. But if we were to look at the splitting of the country through political action. It would be the politicians who would be doing the work to go through the long process. What would it take to leave the union?
How to leave in modern societies
But this all hinges on the historical model of a group of states getting together. To leave and form a 'more perfect union.' Yet as mentioned above, each state could be fine on it's own. So it would only need the counties and people within a single state to agree to it. Within California, only 32% support leaving the union. This is not the typical super-majority that a state would need to leave. If we look at the country and each state as a representation of the people's wishes. Presumably in the cession in 1860 states had populations that wished to leave. The leaders within each state bent to these wishes, and not the other way around.
The main argument for this is that the countrymen within the new country fought hard. Fighting for a long time. The forceful will of the leaders. Is hardly something we could have ever thought of nor has a primary source come out of it.
But let us imagine that a big three state (NY, Texas, California) does decide it wants to leave. 75% or more are clambering for it, any politician that gets elected has to be in favor of this or they won't get elected. And they are fighting tooth and nail, could they do it?
This still splits into two parts. The first is the people living within it voting for the leave, then the other half allowing it to happen. We have seen different sorts of votes globally. Ireland for example voted to leave the United kingdom. The U.K has agreed that if a vote were to pass they would allow it. But upon the votes happening. No movement, the same has gone on for Scotland.
The U.K. is not interested in giving these votes very often, as it is in their best interest to keep them within the union. As is the same for the United States, and Spain with its own secessionary split. Catalonia. So with peaceful means it is not likely in which it will be happening. The two reasons, the first is that states are not begging for it to happen. A certain minority may want it. Second Countries are not generally interested in having them leave.
"The prime minister and the government does not believe that there is a mandate for [a second referendum]. There was one only two years ago. There was an extremely high turnout and there was a resounding result in favour of Scotland remaining in the UK"
So this leads to the second option. If a state wants to leave. Meeting the conditions mentioned followed, this leads to a violent secession. Where in all state taxes would be withheld, any border who needs permission to cross, and so forth. This sort of revolution is even harder to imagine. Within a place like the United States, for the simple reason of nuclear weapons.
Is violent secession possible?
No war since the use of nuclear weapons has happened with the United states. Yes, I am aware of the dozens of conflicts that have happened, but war has not declared, because total war is a horrific thing to imagine with nuclear weapons.
Now each state likely does not have nuclear weapons. As the weapons spread out throughout the country. In an event of total war it is imaginable these would be a top priority. But if the big three were to go to total war with the United States it is not likely they would win. Which brings the argument back around to a unified grouping of states. In which they may go to total war with the country.
So what would this number have to be? It is a good question. As mentioned in total war geography matters. A disjointed group of states is hard to put on a strong defense (or offensive) front against a larger enemy.
So if we were to imagine a group of states. Each one clambering for secession. Were unable to get the country to give it a vote on leaving what that team would look like. With Texas California, and New York seeming to be as far away from each other as possible. It is easier to imagine that they would find allies nearby instead of align with each other.
So how many states and which ones would each of the big three states need to put on a solid defense front? They may take on the United States in a total war without nuclear weapons.
It is at this point I imagine how ludicrous and how many disclaimers this would all need for it to come true, and yet. If anything is possible, it is possible, so it is not without reason to imagine it. If it leads to a collapse of the country.
What is often missed about these sorts of conflicts is how messy the whole situation becomes. When we look to modern states such as Colorado, Wyoming, and such. They are large rectangles. With a border dispute somewhere, making it uneven. But upon a wartime duty line comes the state cuts into diagonal lines in any such way.
How might these big three states support their new found countrymen? If each state is peaceful with all the other. Would a dissolvement of the entire union be more practical than a new found alliance of partners. The European union is the best case study. As it has existed for thousands of years in modernity. Where the United states only has a few hundreds years under our belt.
For a full list of empire ages: click here
But a more adept comparison would be china. As it is more equal in biodiversity. Dense forest, plain lands and mountainous areas. Dozens of dynasties, each one dividing and conquering the land in different sorts of ways. Size shape and local power changes hands, collective peace is never long lasting. Or rather never immortal. The roman empire is often pointed to as the historical example of the united states. Yet it could last longer.
The lindy effect is in essence. If something has been around for X years, it will likely be around for another X years. So with this in mind it is a safer bet to put the United States in the four-hundred year range. The way in which we can bookmark this is by the form in which the government takes. A president has ruled over the country for 1788-present. Which puts the empire in the same range of the Ming and Qing empires of China.
Which fell apart for the same reasons. Excessive war, Bad economics and opposition within the country. While these things are in any country from differing perspectives. Total neglect of these things will in turn not be alright. Which gives way to the idea that the country needs balanced approaches. Some war, some good economics, some appeasing of the internal citizens.
Which leads back to the titular question. Where and how might the United States break up and where might it happen. If we continue onward with our look at the economics of it.
Economics of dis-unification
The upper north of the country has some of the lowest both in the west and the east. If we were to add up the GDP of regional states what would they amount to?
If you want a good article based on political differences breaking up check out this one!
New York and its neighboring northeast. Maine (68) + New Hampshire(89) + Vermont (35) + Massachusetts (604) + Rhode island (64) + Connecticut (288) + new jersey (652) + Pennsylvania (824) + Maryland (434) + Delaware (76) = 3134 Which is equal to California's massive lead of 3183. If we continue to have this threshold, Texas would need around a thousand GDP points to be eligible for this new barrier to entry into the country sweepstakes.
Louisiana (267), Arkansas (135), Oklahoma (207), New Mexico( 105), Arizona (372) = 1086 + 1918 = 3004. So what if we were to raise that to 10,000 about half of the United states GDP? Then the number of states that would have to be added into it, would make it much more formidable.
But this is all on the hinge that this would be better for the whole country, but this is not a given. In a scenario might imagine it upon the breaking up of the greatest nation. the former parts are no match and have a larger rival in the midst, this would be in this situation be a china. Who is likely to surpass the United States in GDP within the next fifty years. So why break up and make this process happen immediately? When the possibility of a military take over would then be even more likely.
It is not uncommon for a country in the middle of a crisis to be overrun by a third party. But then again a total war between nuclear powers seems unthinkable. And even as a broken-up tri-country, the retention of nuclear weapons would still be there! This seems to be the end-state of any nominal breakdown of the country.
Which only leaves the economic realities of the break. Federal land would be given back to the states, not a bad thing. But the main focus is on the smaller states. Take for example that if the federal government only has so much money. The effort to give, it will give it to the states with the most. Continuing the progress seen there, as it is the safer investment. Where small states, fight for scrapes. While these do change over time it is hard to imagine it being this way forever. Coal mining towns or car manufactures used to be the top producing states, and the balance has now shifted.
But this argues from a top-down perspective instead of a bottom-up one. One in which the best citizens move to the smaller states. Turn them into a competitive place. Thus can raise to the same or accompanying level of the larger states. That work is important work, but it is hard. Anyone from a small country will tell you it is hard to get the place into a better one. It is much easier to coast on where you already are, and how to get to a better place.
So how might a small state become competitive with larger ones? The first place to start in my estimation is health. A healthy citizenship is a productive one. Looking at the top killers among people it is heart disease. To curb heart disease the recommended way is a healthy diet and exercise. Which fits into a stereotype that is already there. Overweight Americans is a viewpoint many take. While developing states have the problem of underweight people, needing calories. Overweight is a problem that is new and solved on a grand scale is hard.
Deaths in 2017: 647,457
Percentage of total deaths: 23.5%
Again from a historical perspective. The number one killer of people, would not have been heart disease. It would have been the young ones who were likely to develop a disease and die earlier on in life. From smallpox, to polio. These killers would have been the primary concern of the small states. Trying to create a healthier lifestyle. But this does not solve the problem.
After health what is the next thing that might be able for a smaller state to get a larger amount of GDP accumulation. Well the next section would be education. With these two things being the corner points of a society, a healthy and wise population. And while giving a laundry list of how to fix education. It is only wise to give the broad application of a wiser people. Which would increase literacy rates. The main two ways to increase learning, would be through reading, and writing. An obvious way to look at.
Oh to have more people read, they need to read more. But there is no place to practice these things. If we were to imagine a gym environment. In which someone shows up to exercise but for the mind, what would this environment look like? It does not exist. Where on the reading side this has existed for some format. Which is a library. Solving the equation of availability problem.
But what about the environment that comes with the internet? Does this not solve the problem of availability of books? Yes, and no. It does give access to books, but it comes with a cost of premium. As is the same with food. imagine ordering all food online. Possible, and easy, but is it a 1:1 cost comparison? Not yet, and in rural developing states it is likely not there yet.
Making states better without breaking up
So what about book clubs? They are in the right direction. But this applies more to reading, then to writing. And writing clubs do not have the larger following that they might have. So this apitherapy in states is not something that is currently in a great enough way, to make such a strong impact.
Now is a healthy and wise society a sure-fire way to create more productive people? The answer is a hesitant yes. Because war, famine, and other horrible things may happen to any state. The resilience of the people will increase. And have a stronger way in mitigating the risks, and capping the downside. A thing in finance that is obvious. And in good times, the healthy and wise people will make the times even greater. It is an upward trajectory of a people that makes things easier.
So with these things in mind. It makes sense that a state might try to foster a wise and healthy place. How it might ignore these and make a stateless wise and less healthy.
From a top-down perspective, it can do a lot. Burning books, shutting down libraries, closing schools and so forth. Again a non-historical outlier as these can happen. It can also happen in banning books from the mail. From the bible to whom the bell tolls, a book can be made into the enemy of the people, overnight.
From a bottom-up perspective. There are things that can happen to discourage reading, and writing. From loud noises to disruptive environments which make focus a hard task. For the opposite effects that can happen in food. Thinking of a place that affects taste. From flavor to keeping of the food. If the food is not housed in a safe place then disease and discomfort can come from eating the food.
Thinking about the health and safety of food is not a 1:1 comparison. But a healthy and wise population needs safe and healthy food, and ideas to foster the proper ways to develop a state.
These distractions. Obstacles make the growth of these things are what make it difficult. But not impossible, as with these things I am optimistic that if it can happen once, it can happen again. The difficulty is one thing, the acceptance and fulfillment of it is another.
But how might a small state foster such environments? To overemphasize thinking and critical thought? An obvious forefront to tackle is noise. I am not in the minority when I have more time to think better. I have less noise going on around me. In these silences, thoughts emerge that can help to make a better place. This fostering of environments is again a top-down approach. In the hands of government officials. Yet, these things are all negatives. To the population.
Tall buildings distract views. Lower speed limits mean more commute time. Bike lanes mean bike theft. Public transport means tax dollars. These things are hard to sell to a group of people. it is no secret that people do not want to think. But just because it is hard, doesn't mean it is not worthwhile.
Which comes to the problem of who is in the offices, and how persuasive they are. Salespeople are a section of the society and communities we create. Yet I am not the first to notice that many of these persuasive people are not going into government jobs. Roles, to persuade people to have better lives. They will go into jobs and places that are high paying, and give the most benefits.
Influencing these people to go into these roles. Where they might influence others to create a better life for themselves. Is an interesting turn of the flywheel, that is not solvable in the interim. But this then comes into the question of how many people are working in the government. Again this is a misnomer. If smart influencing people were in the government spots. They would be able to convince a group of people that they should be there. Calls upon earlier generations to go into the government were easier. To manage, for a reason of there being more to do.
Think of a founding father in the 1800's. Creating a whole system of government. Is something that requires day and night dedication. Likely a dedication seen in places like silicon valley. But hundreds of years later, the work of what needed on a week to week basis is not a sizable amount. If the system seldom fails and is on auto-pilot then nothing needs happen. If one is to focus on the working parts instead of the non-working parts then my statement above makes sense. Yet if one was to focus on the non-working parts they would be correct that day and night work could happen. But these avenues are not popular by definition. So if the culture of the entire system is to change. Where many swaths of influential people were to join in, then many swaths of the problem would have to break. Which I do not believe are.
Police have a rule book they follow. Enemies of foreign countries are not attacking. Money flows around the country. Taxes get collected. Postal service delivers mail. And so on. Most of this works, and most of it does not need changing. If one law, one terrorist, one policy, one tax needs a change. In the monumental goliath that is our current system. You will not have charismatic people. You will be detail oriented people, who on a whole are not persuasive because they are in the details.
Which leads back to the original problem of breaking up big countries. If influential people are to join into the government the only way it will happen, is if there is lots to do. It is hard to imagine having more to do, then having to form a whole new country. And if the only reason is to form a new country is to give these people something to do. It doesn't seem like a good enough reason to me.