If the US were to cut into 50 nations? Democracy vs. Prosperity?

**Rt. Hon. Gentleman** · November 05, 2009, 05:40 AM

Thinking about Lisbon has lately made me think about the other side of the coin, namely the US of A. Of course, it is pretty different to Europe, in a gazillion different ways which I cannot currently be bothered to list.

However, the fact of the US is that it is, in the final analysis, a whopping great landmass cut into fifty, highly distinct, partially autonomous states, which are in themselves the size of respectable country. America (being the nation often regarded as being at the forefront of the quest for democracy), has a very interesting setup.

I was thinking: What would happen in the event of a (granted, highly unlikely) event of the 50 states splitting up, and forming independent, economically and militarily allied countries? In other words, like now, only without Washington calling the shots. Each country has it's own leader, armed forces, and economy.

Being someone who isn't an American, I am curious as to know how that would work (if at all). On the one hand, it would effectively render America a non-superpower, and money and resources would not be so easy to share around. On the other, there is gross inefficiency in the America of today by comparison to it's gigantic size. Might independence for the 50 result in increased competition and economic diversification, thus greater efficiency?

Perhaps fifty is too many, too small. Let's say each of the states paired off, making it 25. That may (possibly) work. I don't know. I don't advocate this as something that should be done, by the way, I merely think it is an interesting idea.

Discuss.

**Tiwaz** · November 05, 2009, 05:57 AM

Unlikely that it would be successful.

Amount lost to inefficiency in Federal government is offset by improvement in synergies gained from single decision making.

50 independent nations would have total output far below current style USA. They might together manage to have little less ineffciency in government actions, but not necessarily, but they would all be weighted down by need to do same thing 50 times over.

Instead of paying for one government, there would be need to maintain 50 governments and their cooperative organs which try to ensure that cross border cooperation goes smoothly.

**Rt. Hon. Gentleman** · November 05, 2009, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Unlikely that it would be successful.

Amount lost to inefficiency in Federal government is offset by improvement in synergies gained from single decision making.

50 independent nations would have total output far below current style USA. They might together manage to have little less ineffciency in government actions, but not necessarily, but they would all be weighted down by need to do same thing 50 times over.

Instead of paying for one government, there would be need to maintain 50 governments and their cooperative organs which try to ensure that cross border cooperation goes smoothly.

I was referring to inefficiency in terms of GDP compared to landmass, as opposed to inefficiency on a Governmental level. Also, doesn't each state maintain a federal Government? If the word federal was painted out, and national painted in, why would this necessitate more money spent on Government?

I'm only playing Devil's advocate here, I 'm not sure it would work, either.

**vopohame** · November 05, 2009, 06:21 AM

Many states would simply become third world as they have no reason for existing without federal assistance ie west virginia, half the south and most of the west outside of the coast.

Texas, California would be relatively strong. The mountain west would consist of a balkan like environment where latinos, native americans, mormans and whites would dish it out for control. Everyone would leave the plains states and it would return to the buffalo lol. The northern middle states would be dependent on Canada and the eastern states for access for imports and exports. The east coast would be become a socialist haven except for pennsylvania which has way too many deer hunters with guns to allow that.

The southern and mid atlantic states would do ok. Appalachia would be become even crazier and wilder and probably would be an area of warlords and clans.

**Lance-Corporal Jones** · November 05, 2009, 06:38 AM

Since the US (unlike Europe) are a cultural nation which behaves like a de facto nation-state, I very much doubt this would happen.

**dogukan** · November 05, 2009, 06:53 AM

here is a revolutionary approach. USA doesn't have to divide into pieces. Instead they need an uncorrupt government that has given itself totally to providing better standarts for everyone. Making life easier in everyway possible thus creating an environment where people can have time for thinking. Instead of making people addicted to called modernism/popular culture/ consuming, making them productive, organising them according to their strong strong ways.

Without of course, wasting money to grow her influence around the globe for making those uncles who profit more and more.

**Kjertesvein** · November 05, 2009, 07:03 AM

To tell you the truth Rt. Hon. Gentleman, I have to been poundering on this to for awhile. There are so many people not voting(55%), I think the current way of federal government is undemocratic and there is so much diss aprovel in many american hearts (As I reflect it).

On the flip side, only the constitution (IIRC) is against splitting up the lands. Which could lead to a civil war....

BL-Wille

**~~TheXand~~** · November 05, 2009, 07:37 AM

Strength through unity! Lots of small competing nations is inefficient and weakens them all as a whole.
The Roman fasces is the perfect exampleof this.

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

**Shams al-Ma'rifa** · November 05, 2009, 07:57 AM

This won't happen because the union today is too strong, there is no state unhappy as part of a greater union, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages...

**~~TheXand~~** · November 05, 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by mkesadaran

This won't happen because the union today is too strong, there is no state unhappy as part of a greater union, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages...

The OP did say that it was a purely hypothetical scenario

**Admiral Piett** · November 05, 2009, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by mkesadaran

This won't happen because the union today is too strong, there is no state unhappy as part of a greater union, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages...

No they aren't. If given the legal authority the states of Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and possibly California would likely jump at the opportunity to secede. They each have very different political environments but they all share an equal hatred of Washington.

**Shams al-Ma'rifa** · November 05, 2009, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

No they aren't. If given the legal authority the states of Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and possibly California would likely jump at the opportunity to secede. They each have very different political environments but they all share an equal hatred of Washington.

Lol how many people will actually vote so secede...

**Captain Jin** · November 05, 2009, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

No they aren't. If given the legal authority the states of Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and possibly California would likely jump at the opportunity to secede. They each have very different political environments but they all share an equal hatred of Washington.

Uh, no way. Where do you get that from?

**Admiral Piett** · November 09, 2009, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Jin

Uh, no way. Where do you get that from?

Those are the states that are the most alienated with Washington politics.

**Shams al-Ma'rifa** · November 05, 2009, 08:08 AM

They would act just like the states had acted before the revolution, separate countries but they should be allied unless one of the states caused the union to fall in the first place...

**CtrlAltDe1337** · November 05, 2009, 08:22 AM

Well you can look at this in several ways. I think most of the states would still want to work together and cooperate, so I doubt they would be forming rival alliances. I mean, look at us and Canada. We haven't been at war since the war of 1812, almost 200 years now. And I think the states would naturally want some defensive treaties (like NATO) and economic treaties (NAFTA?) to make things basically like they are now in that regard. But of course, we would have little say in foreign policy, and each state having its own military would be a big drain on the economies of those states. But this would get rid of the horribly corrupt federal government, and free up a lot of money that way.

In the end, I think it would be a worse situation than we have now. But the ideal situation would be a very loose union, where the federal government has few powers and the states basically run everything except foreign affairs and regulating matters between states (gee that sounds a lot like a document I've heard of, I wonder what its called....*cough* constitution *cough*). And if Europe wants to integrate, that is what they should aim for. Unfortunately, they are too busy dictating laws and grabbing power atm to bother with such a plan.

**blackwatersix** · November 05, 2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by CtrlAltDe1337

. And if Europe wants to integrate, that is what they should aim for. Unfortunately, they are too busy dictating laws and grabbing power atm to bother with such a plan.

The problem I see with this is that Europe, unlike the United States, is composed of many different cultures.. which understandably no one wants to give up. In contrast to the US, which is arguably a nation-state.

**CtrlAltDe1337** · November 05, 2009, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by blackwatersix

The problem I see with this is that Europe, unlike the United States, is composed of many different cultures.. which understandably no one wants to give up. In contrast to the US, which is arguably a nation-state.

That's true, and presents a big problem for the EU.

**Sphere** · November 05, 2009, 11:09 AM

To clear up how the US federal system currently operates....

1.) Each state has its own Constitution and they vary considerably, the only requirement is that it has a republican form of government.

2.) Each state in theory has its own military (the National Gaurd), which does take orders from the State Governor, though its still a fuzzy legal line if the State Governor can superceed the President. Governors in the past have threatened to due so, but never followed through. So in effect, the National Gaurd can be (and often is) used by the President.

3.) Each state issues it's own legal registrations i.e. Licensce Plates, Lawyers, Doctors, Marriages, Engineers etc. Though the Federal Constitution requires each state recognize these registrations across state lines.

4.) Tarriffs between states are strickly forbidden, though buying products and re-selling them across state lines without paying the sales-tax is illegal. So there is "smuggling" of certain high taxed items (tobacco & Alcohol mostly) from low sales-tax states to high sales-tax states.

5.) Monetary policy is complex, but in short every state gets a say, but the final decision is made by the national Federal Reserve. States can IIRC have their own currency, though none choose to do so.

So in terms of the strict legal sense, states have a large degree of independence. However, over the years the US federal government has developed power in a financial sense. I.e. the Federal Government will only give out money to states who have certain laws or policies in place.

For a recent example, Obama's new education reform has a few billion dollars to give out, but only to states that don't restrict merit based pay for teachers, and many states are now scambling to conform to this requirement. Likewise, states don't get federal money for transportation construction if they have a drinking age under 21, hence every state in the union changed their drinking age to 21. So while the Federal Government doesn't have a direct legal control over states, it can still set policy by hanging carrots out in the form of federal funds.

As to the OP, there are a few "regions" in the US that would merge together. The "Tri-state" centered around NY city, the "Deep South" of Mississippi, Alabama and Lousiana etc. These regions have enough in common to form a common government.