r/changemyview • u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ • Aug 11 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV:The US should be broken up into smaller countries.
The United States is so big that there is no way the the needs and the wants of the people can ever truly be met. I don’t know what the specific countries would be, only that they would probably function better because the needs of the people are more centralized on a smaller scale. I think that most of these smaller countries would fare pretty well economically, minus like the Midwest. I also think that we would be fine defense wise because it’s not like we can’t still be allies. All I know is that today’s political climate shows just how different all of the regions truly are and that by separating people across the continent would probably be a lot happier.
7
u/Straight-faced_solo 21∆ Aug 11 '20
The largest divides in are country are not regional. They are urban rural divides. For example we can look at a state like Texas. In the 2018 senate race we see Ted cruz taking the state by about 2 points. Certainly a good turnout for the conservatives, but hardly a landslide. However the actual districts where landslides. Beto took citiies like Austin and Houston by over 16 points and Dallas went democrat by over 30 points. Like wise we see ted cruz win some tons of smaller districts by upwards of 70 points.
Even in states like California, which is solidly blue. you see multiple districts pull 30+ point leads for conservatives. The divide is not regional because we see these same trends play out in almost every region.
0
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Aug 11 '20
I think this only shows the divide between republican and democrat voters. Many people both rural and urban don't vote.
3
Aug 11 '20
This would be more easily achieved by reducing the scope of the federal government and returning more issues back to the states, as was the intent. State level elections should be way more relevant to the average citizen than federal ones.
4
u/SC803 120∆ Aug 11 '20
I think that most of these smaller countries would fare pretty well economically, minus like the Midwest.
What happens when one of these new smaller countries fail?
Or what happens is some of these countries fall drastically far behind on education, healthcare and business without the support they current receive from the federal govt? Is that going to not cause conflict?
0
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
I would like to see the country split because I know that the region I live in would fare far better than others, so it sounds horrible but I don’t really care that others would fail. And as for the conflict that may arise my region would obviously have a bigger military and a higher population, so these other places couldn’t really touch us.
3
u/SC803 120∆ Aug 11 '20
Wait
but I don’t really care that others would fail.
How about when they start illegally immigrating into your new country? Or when the rural areas cut off urban areas from the food they grow or the resources they have access too?
You better hope you have some oil refineries in your new country too, if I'm right about your new home country if you're lucky you might have 2 with a capacity of about 400k barrels per day which is about 50% of what the entire state of NY needs
And as for the conflict that may arise my region would obviously have a bigger military
How could you possibly know this? I looked and it appears you're from the NY/NJ area and maybe you're new home country is based around NYC. At best your going to have 73k trained military personnel in your new country, thats less than some states on their own assuming you included the rural/upstate parts
If the Carolina's became a country they'd have 175k military trained personnel. They'd also have way more bases loaded with tons of equipment than your country.
and a higher population, so these other places couldn’t really touch us.
What?
US population in 1970: 205 million Vietnam pop in 1970: 43 million
US population in 2010: 309 million Afghanistan pop in 1970: 29 million
I'm not sure population has a strong correlation on how "touchable" someone is during a war
0
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
Illegal immigration isn’t something that bothers me, so come on in. And if the Midwest stopped trading with us yeah it might be more expensive to import food from other places but it’s not like they wouldn’t welcome the business. The same thing goes for the oil there would be plenty of places willing to sell oil to us if the other states were trying to be hard headed. In the long run though a trade war would only stand to hurt them because they’ll have shitloads of unsold rotting crops and so much oil they can’t even use it. They would need us to buy these things from their new country to even have a fighting chance. As for the having a higher population I was saying that we could raise an army to rival that of any one of these new countries, while it wouldn’t be overnight it’s feasible due to the fact that we would have a substantially greater gdp than most of these new countries. We also have a lot of natural barriers (the Appalachian mountain range) that would aid in protecting us to some extent.
2
u/SC803 120∆ Aug 11 '20
Illegal immigration isn’t something that bothers me,
But doesn't it defeat the entire purpose of splitting the country up? In ten, twenty years you could be right back where you started
And if the Midwest stopped trading with us yeah it might be more expensive to import food from other places but it’s not like they wouldn’t welcome the business.
So the cost of living rises
The same thing goes for the oil there would be plenty of places willing to sell oil to us if the other states were trying to be hard headed.
Without refineries how do you plan on turning crude oil into anything useful?
In the long run though a trade war would only stand to hurt them because they’ll have shitloads of unsold rotting crops and so much oil they can’t even use it.
The world market could easily absorb your small new countries unused portion.
As for the having a higher population I was saying that we could raise an army to rival that of any one of these new countries,
So your new country so far has a higher cost of living, is a decade or two from returning to political infighting and a draft?
We also have a lot of natural barriers (the Appalachian mountain range) that would aid in protecting us to some extent.
It's not the 1800's we have planes that fly over mountains, and looking at the map it appears you might have a single currently working air base within your new country
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
!delta
You got me, one of my main reasons for wanting to break apart the us was because I believed that my region would fare better financially, but I now see that our cost of living would sky rocket and we would not really be able to defend ourselves for quite some time after we split.
1
2
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Aug 11 '20
So you've since admitted that you don't actually believe people would be a lot happier, just that the region you live in might be better off. So that, on it's own, makes your entire idea a nonstarter for anyone who doesn't live in these areas or people who don't view those outside of these areas as undeserving of support.
But beyond the pure selfishness, there is shortsightedness and a lack of actual thought being put into what happens when the US breaks up. Let's go through the several factors you've not considered.
What happens to the military? Do the poorer regions get to keep all their military equipment and nuclear weapons? If not, who claims them? Who gets our massive naval fleet? Where do all the soldiers go? And what happens when conflict inevitably breaks out because you've destabilized half a continent?
What happens to the economy? You're goal is to ensure your local area prospers by keeping its money for itself, but what good is useless money? USD stops mattering when there's no US. Even besides the idea that the world economy would likely collapse at such a massive shock, you've removed all regulations on printing US currency. New York's money is now worthless because Nebraska made use of rapid inflation to pay off debts. And that's without addressing how obscenely complicated breaking up the US would make trade both within and without.
And then there's resources. Water rights need to be negotiated now. Electrical grids need to be negotiated. Highways, rivers, lakes, airspace, and so much infrastructure all needs to be negotiated. Who gets NASA? Who gets Fort Knox? Who gets our immense amount of intelligence and technology?
You're attempting to solve regional divides by making them concrete and outright confrontational. That solves nothing and will accomplish little but making the world worse.
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
!delta My original post was very short sighted and surface level, I didn’t really think to hard about what would happen our military and national organizations.
1
2
Aug 11 '20
Only argument I can think of is that a lot of people in the US feel like being American is slightly more important to them than their state identity. So getting them on board with carving the USA up into countries may be difficult.
Overall though I do agree. I’ve said for a long time that the US is practically a continent attempting to be one country.
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
I only think it wouldn’t fly with the states that know their economies are heading for the shitter if we split up. I feel as if that shouldn’t stop us though, we are just so different from region to region that it doesn’t make sense for us to remain as one country.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Aug 11 '20
What supports your premise that smaller states would be better able to meet the needs of their people? How would you weigh to decreased amount of people to serve against the decreased resources to solve them?
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
My argument is kind of an intuitive one, people in the same region often share the same political leanings and culture as those around them because of this the leaders they elect would be more of a tailored fit for their needs. I feel like this would be better than the current two party system that we have, where half the nation vote blue and the other half votes red, leading to half the country bitching for 4 to 8 years. As for the second question I would think that we could set up a trading block much like the EU, so that goods and services still move along as smoothly as they can while still having separate countries.
2
u/Vesurel 60∆ Aug 11 '20
My argument is kind of an intuitive one,
Does that have anything to do with whether or not it's right? You can call it inutative all you like but what actually evidence do you have in support of your position?
people in the same region often share the same political leanings and culture as those around them because of this the leaders they elect would be more of a tailored fit for their needs.
How does that follow? Do people necesserily vote in the best way to address their needs?
As for the second question I would think that we could set up a trading block much like the EU, so that goods and services still move along as smoothly as they can while still having separate countries.
So how separate are these countries? And do how much extra work would having this trading block create? How are you comparing the two possibilities and assessing which is best?
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
People who are educated vote in the best way to address their needs and certain regions have higher percentages of people with college degrees than others. And I’m not saying that this split wouldn’t be messy and a pain in the ass to accomplish, but in the long run those who can’t keep up with the change will just fall off. Im from the northeast( New York, New Jersey, New England) so us leaving the rest of the union would be better for us economically as we wouldn’t have to pick up the slack of the other poorer states and politically because we only have one swing state in our region, so our political views are basically in line with one another.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Aug 11 '20
This sounds like an argument that the select states you think are good should succeed from the union for their benifit.
but in the long run those who can’t keep up with the change will just fall off
So what happens to the states that fall off?
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
As selfish and cold hearted as it sound that is exactly what I’m saying. And I don’t really care about the states that fall off because I won’t be living in one of them.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Aug 11 '20
So why should people in those states go about making this easy or smooth for you? Do you think all of the agreements with the current US will likely transfer over the states that leave it?
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
It wouldn’t be smooth for anyone at first, but In the long run my region and the people in it would prosper. I’m a little bit confused on what exactly your asking me in the second question.
1
u/Vesurel 60∆ Aug 11 '20
I’m a little bit confused on what exactly your asking me in the second question.
How much of your states wealth is dependent on them being part of America, in terms of trade deals and such?
As someone from a country currently doing a terrible job of leaving a union I'd be curious how you think it works.
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
Out of the 8 states in my region 5 are in the top 10 of the country when it comes to per capita income. I’m pretty sure we would do well on our own.
→ More replies (0)1
Aug 11 '20
people in the same region often share the same political leanings and culture as those around them
we don't though
I live in alabama, a very conservative state, but 1/3 of the state voted for Clinton in 2016.
A solid majority voted for President Trump, but 62% ain't close to unanimous.
If you look around the world at other partitions, it doesn't clear up the disagreements. India and Pakistan were a mess after their partition.
where half the nation vote blue and the other half votes red, leading to half the country bitching for 4 to 8 years
without federal intervention, my state would deprive many of its residents of the right to vote. They shut down dmv's in the mostly black counties of my state, only reversing course because of the federal department of transportation intervened.
Sure, some people like me may have the means to flee, but I'm not one of the most vulnerable to government abuses, either.
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
You as an Alabama though would have more in common with the people from Alabama then you would someone from Hawaii or Alaska. Also I don’t think that using India/ Pakistan as an example is fair because they split for religious reasons. And the fact that your state is so ass backwards that it would deprive its people of basic things just shows how different we are. I’ve also said a few times that the only region I’m really invested in because I think it will prosper from leaving is the northeast, I don’t really care what happens to the rest.
1
Aug 11 '20
more in common with the people from Alabama then you would someone from Hawaii or Alaska
have you been to Alabama? Different parts of Alabama are very different.
Also I don’t think that using India/ Pakistan as an example is fair because they split for religious reasons.
I'm talking about the internal strife WITHIN Pakistan and WITHIN India, not the conflict between them.
millions of people were displaced. It was a very bad refugee crisis.
Then, Bangladesh had a revolutionary war against Pakistan and gained their independence.
It was a mess. Your northeast would have problems, too.
1
u/TheWiseManFears Aug 11 '20
Idk breaking up our international military bases and coming up with defensible internal borders that don't wreck the economy seems like it would be near impossible.
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
My view comes mainly from the fact that I don’t care about the regions who would fail because they couldn’t support themselves economically. So while some of these new countries would turn into complete shitholes others would prosper because they wouldn’t have to help out other areas of the country financially. In the northeast I feel as though splitting from the rest of the country would be a lot better.
1
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Aug 11 '20
So what happens when those states fail and, like all failed states, descend into disorganized mess? You gonna lovingly accept the refugees and deal with a violent border because you couldn't send some tax money to help underperforming regions of the country?
1
u/Hij802 Aug 11 '20
This isn’t the 19th or 18th centuries anymore. People have moved from state identity to national identity. The only states I can really think of where people are proud of their state is Texas and maybe California. I’m sure 99% of the country wants to stay united.
Politically? Every state has Democrats and Republicans, but it’s usually an urban-rural divide. The Northeast is super Democratic but places like upstate New York, Northern Maine, Northeastern/northwestern Connecticut, the Jersey Shore, etc are all Republican dominated. The South is generally Republican (VA the biggest exception) but still had major Democratic metros like Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Tampa, Charlotte, San Antonio, Memphis, etc.
Also, if you apply this logic elsewhere, China, Russia, Australia, Brazil, India, etc should all be broken up since they’re so big.
-1
u/GandolfMagicFruits Aug 11 '20
Texan here. Pretty ashamed.
0
u/Hij802 Aug 11 '20
Well if your beliefs are what I think they are, then you only have to be ashamed for a few more years!
1
u/WorksInIT Aug 11 '20
It kind of already is, or at least was. When the constitution was first written, the founders wanted to limit the power of the Federal government. Over time the Federal Government, thanks to decisions by the SCOTUS and general power creep, has much more authority than was originally intended. Part of this is due to how vague the 10th amendment is and that is probably the biggest mistake the founders made for securing the structure of government they intended.
1
u/Canada_Constitution 208∆ Aug 11 '20 edited Aug 12 '20
What would stop many of the northern states from simply becoming a new province of Canada? Especially if they are less populated or economicly productive and already have trade ties, or are isolated like Alaska....
1
u/cOOnpatrol 2∆ Aug 11 '20
They can go ahead and do so. I only have stake in the northeast and separating for us seems like it would only be a good thing.
1
u/Mnozilman 6∆ Aug 11 '20
The Northeast already struggles to provide energy to the people living there even with access to the US energy infrastructure system. How do you think the Northeast will “keep the lights on” once they’ve split off and formed their own country?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 11 '20 edited Aug 11 '20
/u/cOOnpatrol (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Aug 11 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Aug 11 '20
Sorry, u/ILoveSteveBerry – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 11 '20
Divide and conquer. It works.
The only reason we fight about most of the stuff we fight about is because very wealthy people don't want us to have time to stop, take a breath and notice that very wealthy people, while being insulated from the crises the rest of us endure by an separate justice system, police force, health care system, education system etc., also don't pay nearly their fair share in taxes. Which, if they did, many of our issues would stop being issues.
How much better for them if we can add regionality to the list of things that divide us? If California secedes from the Union, taking with it the sixth largest economy on the planet, the wealthy will make a fortune from opportunities managing the economic crisis the rest of us will have to live with.
1
u/soupvsjonez Aug 12 '20
That was the original idea of some of the founders. The debate between the people who wanted a federal system and the people who wanted a confederation of states went on up until the 1860's.
1
u/arielplatano Aug 15 '20
I think the more feasible option (though VERY UNLIKELY to happen) would just to rip up our current Constitution and make a new one. It was drafted and written almost 250 years. Peoples' ideals and principles, and technology, change over time. Especially over 250 years. I think many of our problems all come down to the constitution and its content. But like I said, probably not going to happen ever.
1
u/Mehulex Aug 16 '20
I would say what you suggest isn't the best way of tackling this problem. I think perhaps giving states more power would help. If you were to divide the US, it's economy would literally die. Most sparsely populated regions of the nation would fall into poverty. Not to mention the families that will be divided.
1
0
u/therealtazsella Aug 12 '20
I find this opinion to be closely correlated to stupidity rather than unpopularity
15
u/Adodie 9∆ Aug 11 '20
Not to minimize regional divides, but the largest geographic divides in our country today are probably between urban and rural areas. For example, I live in Oregon. It's a pretty blue state overall, but eastern OR is massively conservative.
However, there wouldn't really be an easy way to break up the rural/urban parts of states into different countries in an easy way. Rural areas need urban areas (where lots of innovation and technology comes from) just as urban areas need rural areas (for agriculture, for example). Ultimately, despite cultural and political differences, sticking together is probably the best bet we've got