Resolved: the US is too large and ought to be divided...

[Daistallia 2104]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I lean towards yes. Roughly speaking, each of us can know 100-300 people. 3 levels of governance seem to be most workable. 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

[Alaje]

No, there is no such thing as a nation that is "too large".

[Former Soviet Socialists]

?
No thanks.

[Vecherd]

This is an issue I have no insight into, however I believe the different states and nations should be able to vote on the issue.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

What do you base your opinions on, other than just outright opinion? Any facts, statistics, etc.?

[Eireann Fae]

One world government is best government.

[Gig em Aggies]

If you want to talk about a nation thats to large

Population wise:
China & India

Land Area wise:
Russia

this United States is not too large no matter what people think. so my answer is a big NO it should not be divided

[Lancaster of Wessex]

One world government is best government.

Sure, look how great it's worked for supranational bodies like the EU...

[Alaje]

One world government is best government.

Yes!!!

[Dracoria]

Is it too large by land mass? If so, we need to divide Russia and Canada while we're at it.

Too large by population? Which do we carve up first, China or India?

Too large by economy? Japan and China need to meet the axe while we're at it.

In all cases, time to disband the EU as well.

Perhaps, it's just too big for your imagination? If so, time to expand it.

[Arokop]

i can see it now:

The Mormocracy of Deseret (Formerly Utah)
The New California Republic (except lamer than Fallout)
The New Republic of Texas
New Canada (Formerly Alaska)
Crazopia (Formerly Arizona)
and so on...

[Gig em Aggies]

One world government is best government.

that idea is a good one but impossible. Here's why no country will give up its power to rule its own people is just plain and simple.

[Angelinia (Ancient)]

No nation is 'too large'. If US is too large than Russia and Canada are too large as well. Also If you divided the US really the only region that would be able to support itself would be California. As a Los Angeles citizen myself I would love to be from the US but due to recession that isn't a very wise decision right now

[Alaje]

One world government is best government.

Sure, look how great it's worked for supranational bodies like the EU...

That's because they can't decide to be a confederation or a proper federation, you shouldn't adopt a common currency if to can't agree to a common fiscal policy.

[Quintero]

I'm pro Cascadia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_( ... e_movement)
Look into it, we want it.
We are are against military.. so.. we can;t succeed

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Sure, look how great it's worked for supranational bodies like the EU...

That's because they can't decide to be a confederation or a proper federation, you shouldn't adopt a common currency if to can't agree to a common fiscal policy.

So how pre tell do you think the entire globe can work out such issues when a small in comparison group can't?

[Dracoria]

No nation is 'too large'. If US is too large than Russia and Canada are too large as well. Also If you divided the US really the only region that would be able to support itself would be California. As a Los Angeles citizen myself I would love to be from the US but due to recession that isn't a very wise decision right now

I doubt California would do well by itself at all. With its budget woes and being home of so many cities declaring bankruptcy, not to mention businesses fleeing the state... Maybe a decade or twoago, sure.

[Alaje]

That's because they can't decide to be a confederation or a proper federation, you shouldn't adopt a common currency if to can't agree to a common fiscal policy.

So how pre tell do you think the entire globe can work out such issues when a small in comparison group can't?

The EU a concept ahead of its time, too far ahead. I don't think were ready for supranational federations yet.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

So how pre tell do you think the entire globe can work out such issues when a small in comparison group can't?

The EU a concept ahead of its time, too far ahead. I don't think were ready for supranational federations yet.

They were working on it, so to speak, since the late 1940's with the Coal and Steel Pact (BENELUX)...which later evolved into the EEC, the EC, and now the EU...they've had plenty of time to work out things, but still haven't, and likely never will, unless it truly becomes one fluid body which dissembles individual sovereignty of their member states.

Those who are proponents of a single world government should explain how to override all the disparities between nations in terms of economics, social policy, social development differences, racism, xenophobia, nationalism, and so on and on and on and on...

[Transmaris]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I've held this opinion for a while.
Not because of some idea that there should be only 3 levels of government or some such, but because the US is so heterogeneous that it is a nation in name only.

[Gig em Aggies]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I've held this opinion for a while.
Not because of some idea that there should be only 3 levels of government or some such, but because the US is so heterogeneous that it is a nation in name only.

it is most certainly a nation

it is a nation in name only.

this right can be said for any nation if the US is a nation in name only so is the other 199 someodd nations across the globe. of coarse as you can read I'm being sarcastic

[Eireann Fae]

that idea is a good one but impossible. Here's why no country will give up its power to rule its own people is just plain and simple.

I can dream, can't I?

Of course, I also support an USian NHS, and a military restricted to defence. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

That's because they can't decide to be a confederation or a proper federation, you shouldn't adopt a common currency if to can't agree to a common fiscal policy.

Agreed. I remember being quite surprised when I learned that the Euro hadn't tied the nations together near as closely as I'd thought. I had figured a common fiscal plan would only be common sense for a shared currency.

Freedom of movement within the EU and the notable lack of civil wars in the region are pluses, though :)

They were working on it, so to speak, since the late 1940's with the Coal and Steel Pact (BENELUX)...which later evolved into the EEC, the EC, and now the EU...they've had plenty of time to work out things, but still haven't, and likely never will, unless it truly becomes one fluid body which dissembles individual sovereignty of their member states.¹

Those who are proponents of a single world government should explain how to override all the disparities between nations in terms of economics, social policy, social development differences,² racism, xenophobia, nationalism,³ and so on and on and on and on...

¹ I support this :) I think sovereignty of nation-states as we know them is overrated, and only causes problems based in nationalism. Think football riots, but with whole nations going at each other...

² Texas and New York are quite different beasts economically and socially, and are still within the union. There's no fundamental reason we can't all just get along. Texas has oil and cattle, New York has... stock trading. But New York wants gasoline and strip steaks, and Texas companies want to be traded. The regions can and do go into business together, and there's no reason Texas can't also go into business with Chihuahua or Bahia or Guangxi or Bavaria.

³ These are the real problems, and I only wish I had a solution :(

Peace'n'love, people!

[Tahar Joblis]

Texas and not-Texas.

Then not-Texas can annex Canada to make up for it. Pretty please?

[Laerod]

So how pre tell do you think the entire globe can work out such issues when a small in comparison group can't?

The EU a concept ahead of its time, too far ahead. I don't think were ready for supranational federations yet.

The EU is and always was a work in progress. Sure, it was an idea ahead of it's time. That's why the EU didn't get founded in 1950, when it was planned.

[Greed and Death]

Pretty much what it says on the tin:

This topic is for a discussion of the idea that the US is too large and should be divided.

Yea or nay?
Why or why not?
If yes, how?

I lean towards yes. Roughly speaking, each of us can know 100-300 people. 3 levels of governance seem to be most workable. 3 to 30 million seems to work out to the best population level.

I think a division of the US would be beneficial. 3-30 million seems a little low, I could see a division into 3 countries.
Basically the South and Midwest, The North East( expanded a little to include Ohio, Maryland and Delaware), and the West coast. Hawaii could go to the west coast and Alaska could go the the South/Midwest.

This would lead to some problems The north east and West coast need the food production of the Midwest/south to support their populations, and the south Midwest need subsidies in order to maintain steady food production.

So a supra government like the EU has would be needed in order to raise collective taxes and administer highways and agriculture subsidies. Also free trade and movement.

Main opposition would come form the left within the US, because while they complain about the right holding them back they seem to think a refusal to mandate the purchase of insurance is the equivalent to slavery and must be imposed with a bloody civil war if need be.