Which state in the USA could survive alone the best?

[Callisdrun]

Have you ever even fucking been to California? You are aware that a huge amount of it is farmland, and it's something like the 6th largest economy in the world by itself, right?

It also pays more in taxes to the Federal Government than it gets back.

Yes, but the state's finances are in even worse shape than that. The California state government seems pretty dysfunctional.

All told, I'd say California is in pretty good shape to make it on its own relative to most states, but I think native Californians underestimate how heavily reliant their state is on the rest of the country (and especially, how heavily reliant they are on the US currency and a constant flow of migrants from other states looking to strike it big in Cali, both of which would be seriously impacted in a secession scenario), and also how fragile their ecosystem is.

A constitutional convention, which would eventually happen with things the way they are but with independence, would probably fix that. A big part of why the state is always having budget problems is that it takes a 2/3rds majority in the legislature to pass a budget, which is just fucking stupid.

Also, I don't know what it is, but it just grates on me when people call it "Cali." It's like calling Minnesota "Minnie" or Washington "Washi" or something.

[Vandengaarde]

It seems most people are saying Texas and California.

[Tiesa]

I think they're all equally screwed.

[Astholm]

Could Maine, Vermont, New York survive alone, due to their Canadian trade links and the proximity geographically?

[Bears Armed]

But doesn't California depend on water supplies drawn from the inland states to its east, for its southern cities and much of its agriculture, water supplies that the rather dry states out there might decide to keep much of for themselves if -- California now being outside the USA -- the federal government didn't insist on their still continuing to give it its current quota?

[Tahar Joblis]

It seems most people are saying Texas and California.

Well, they're much larger than other states, both in area and population, and have something of a strong identity. Both were at least nominally independent republics before joining the US. Both are also geographically distant from the centers of power, out in the West, where things start getting sparsely populated. Both have long stretches of coastlines and international borders.

The next two largest are New York and Florida. New York has very close ties (commuter relationships) with neighboring states, namely Mass., Conn., R.I., and N.J. New England could secede as a region - either proper "old" New England (prior to kicking out the Dutch) or a "greater" New England. (Jersey and York, folks, are indeed places in England.) However, New York itself, part of the Union from the beginning, seems not too likely to secede as an individual state, and if New York and New York alone seceded, it would probably be a little uncomfortable in the divided Northeastern corridor.

Florida has a very large snowbird/retiree population and a large hispanic population of diverse origins, both of which mean the state has remarkably strong ties to the nation as a whole. Factor in the importance of tourism, and we'd say that in spite of a decent geographic position and a large population, Florida is not in a great position to secede based on the human factors. Texas has a very strong identity; Florida's is far more diffuse.

Hawaii and Alaska are non-contiguous with the US. (So's Puerto Rico, but that one isn't a state, so is disqualified on technical grounds.) That usually puts them on the short list. Alaska is in a pretty crappy position - it's fairly inhospitable, the population is more male than female and vanishingly small. It also has a strategic natural resource supply that the US is not going to be eager to lose.

Hawaii, on the other hand, only needs to worry about being bought by the Japanese, has a strong identity, and is a tropical paradise. The only drawback is that Hawaii depends heavily on the tourist trade, but let's be honest, Hawaii gets a lot of international tourism and would get a lot of US tourism even if it weren't a state. So Hawaii is much better off than Alaska.

From there, we go on down the list of large states. Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio all have Great Lakes coastlines. They don't even have a Canadian border, although they could ship things across the lake. Strategically, this is not an especially attractive position. You have two larger neighbors on friendly terms with one another (Canada and the US) who between them control all your external trade and traffic. This is also the rust belt, which brings us to the next-largest state, Michigan, which does have actual Canadian land borders - but is struggling economically with the downfall of the auto industry.

I've already talked about NJ, NC, and GA, so VA is really the next state on the list to talk about; it is in a somewhat similar position to NC and GA, except for the fact that northern Virginia is the suburbs of DC and there's a lot of government contracting/lobbying out that way, and that Virginia is a smaller state even including the DC 'burbs.

Next on the list is Washington, which meets a lot of basic criteria - coastline, international border, population center, far from the action (surrounded by lower-population and very low population density states) - but we just dropped significantly in population again. At this point, the larger states that look less viable for individual secession are starting to look more viable again - they may have mitigating cultural factors, but at least they have a significant population, and size is IMO a plus in this sort of scenario.

I suppose there are a couple states that might be able to get away with secession on the basis of being very small, out of the way, and harmless looking. I'm thinking in particular of Rhode Island - you don't even have to drive into Rhode Island if you're going from Connecticut to Boston (just go up 395 or 84 and you don't cross the border). If Rhode Island seceded, it doesn't really even inconvenience anybody else.

[Straughn]

Alaska?

Yeah, you know, where we can see you from our porch?

[Geilinor]

New York. Lots of business headquarters there, and NYC makes it rich and prosperous.

Here's a tidbit of info. "New York's gross state product in 2007 was $1.1 trillion, ranking third in size behind the larger states of California and Texas. If New York were an independent nation, it would rank as the 16th largest economy in the world behind Turkey. Its 2007 per capita personal income was $46,364, placing it sixth in the nation behind Maryland, and eighth in the world behind Ireland." (from Wikipedia, info might not be totally accurate, but it's probably pretty accurate)
According to the CIA world factbook Canda's gross domestic product is $1.287 trillion. It's economic power means that it could easily survive.

[Straughn]

New York. Lots of business headquarters there, and NYC makes it rich and prosperous.

Here's a tidbit of info. "New York's gross state product in 2007 was $1.1 trillion, ranking third in size behind the larger states of California and Texas. If New York were an independent nation, it would rank as the 16th largest economy in the world behind Turkey. Its 2007 per capita personal income was $46,364, placing it sixth in the nation behind Maryland, and eighth in the world behind Ireland." (from Wikipedia, info might not be totally accurate, but it's probably pretty accurate)
According to the CIA world factbook Canda's gross domestic product is $1.287 trillion. It's economic power means that it could easily survive.

Let's hope there's no problems with the actual landowners in that case, then.

[KenKenpachi]

I have to go with Texas (had Alaska here on mistake)or my home State of NC. Texas has oil, farm land and the ability to make use of its coastal regions. It also has a huge population. NC, we have a harbor facilities, large military infastructure, agericultural lands, and industry. We however at 9 million do not have a large population.

[Cowland5]

.

[Pope Joan]

I choose Pennsylvania because I live in it.

As a transplanted PAian, I would list these assets:

access to the Atlantic as well as to the Great lakes

ample high-quality coal and high-quality oil

ample forestry including valuable hardwoods

Three significant navigable river systems. Some possibility for hydro.

Good land for dairying; some truck farms; a couple excellent orchard and vineyard areas.

Underutilized industrial capacity, empty but usable factories for instance, with rail access as well as highways and airports. It's a decent mixed transport system.

Good water supply.

Negatives:

Little possibility for solar.

Freezing weather and high water tables lead to road damage; upkeep is expensive.

Despite the presence of excellent colleges, a large portion of the population are proud to be ignorant, proud that nobody in their family went to school.

There is a deep vein of racism, and many flourishing enclaves of groups such as the Aryan Nation, KKK, and Christian Identity.

[Conserative Morality]

Maryland. We can live off of our crabs. (Make your jokes now, please)

[New Zeppy]

Maryland. We can live off of our crabs. (Make your jokes now, please)

What is a Mary Land?

[Conserative Morality]

What is a Mary Land?

Best damn State in the Union.

[Pope Joan]

What is a Mary Land?

Best damn State in the Union.

I am partial to the panhandle; Deep Creek, Grantsville and so on.

It's gorgeous.

[Tangomania]

New York New York!

[New Sociopia]

Michigan.





AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Ole Kentucky]

Probably a toss-up between California and Texas...

Texas
California is already bankrupt.

[Grenartia]

I think we are all forgetting the obvious here. Louisiana. Yeah we're pretty vulnerable to hurricanes and such (the only problems were the levees, which were federally built and maintained; and the federal response.), but New Orleans has one of the largest ports in the world. Plus, we have some of the richest fishing areas in the nation and the Mississippi River does carry a lot of runoff that could be harvested to improve our already excellent soils. Militarily, we'd be screwed by ourselves (as would any other state), but a trade agreement with a few nations is bound to lead to some sort of military alliance.

[Central Panamambia]

Florida. We'd still have tourism, oranges, and fishing. Plus the ports in Miami. Assuming of course Cuba wouldn't annex us

[Ixzara]

Texas for sure. Texas had to loan the federal government money after Katrina for federal aid. (And the feds have still to pay it back).

California was never really an independent country. What happened was that 30 settlers decided to "Declare" independence, after it was though that the Mexican Army was going to evict all Americans from Mexican soil. It was essentially a micronation, which is why the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo included Alta California in the terms of the treaty.

[Bafuria]

Ohio or Alaska.

[Satirius]

Michigan.





AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Detroit->New Baghdad luls

[United Marktoria]

Could Nebraska? At first I thought no... but maybe it can... I am not sure...