re: This nation is headed for a Divorce

quote:

---

stay stagnant

---

I wouldn’t use stagnant, it has a negative connotation. A stagnant pool of water.

Human nature doesn’t change. And that’s the crux of it for me. That’s why the liberals vision for America is a fools errand.

Two choices.


Stay together for the kids
Kill her and dump her in the swamp where no one will ever find her.

She’s not taking all we’ve worked for.

You forgot the 3rd option. Ignore the b1tch and do what the h3ll you want.

Next funniest thing is the power getting cut off because Arizona is supplying a huge chunk of Cali’s needs.

quote:

---

China can gain more influence over a nation where the bulk of the power is concentrated in a few spots (NYC, DC, Silicon Valley) than it would over a decentralized society. That's a fact.

---

A decentralized society (which can be achieved by federalism) implies that there is still a unifying central government. A completely Balkanized nation would be subject to more foreign threats, and creates a particular security situation called the "security spiral," as states in an anarchic world (without a central authority) are only as safe as their neighbors allow them to be. Since states are self-interested, their self-interest is in their preservation, which leads to increased security spending, as well as the need for foreign alliances in order to alleviate those issues.

The shape of geopolitics will depend on what new arrangement is created, and who controls what. A new state with a nuclear arsenal immediately has more power than a larger state without one. Who controls the financial system, what currency is created, and the events preceding any dissolution are all relevant (among many more externalities).

We can look to two situations. First, we can look at the effect of Balkanization, where the Balkan states either became satellites for larger states, like Russia with Serbia and Turkey's attempts with Bosnia, entry points for foreign powers, like China's investment in the Western Balkans, or the states sought entry into larger conglomerations, like the EU (which sped up integration with Chinese investment). The security situation is still precarious, and there are many unresolved issues that will linger for a long time, harming the overall security situation, while limiting economic mobility.

The second situation is historical, with the seeds of German Romantic Nationalism planted during and in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, which result in the unification of German princely states in the 1870's, but not after an attempt at unification in 1848. The princely states were also weakened by larger imperial powers, and the aspirations of one of the princely states, Prussia.

Centralized states, especially with the progress of technology, are going to be even more ascendant, as India's economy is predicted to increase by at least 3 times by 2050, and Indian internal politics at the moment are attempting to reimagine the federal state that developed (after a massive degree of centralization from 1950 to 1990). Decentralized states could have, at one time, been ascendant, but unfortunately technological progress was used (for many reasons) to coalesce power instead of diffuse it.

But if you are talking about redefining the roles of the US government while embracing what amounts to a stronger federalism, I think we might be on board. If you are talking about dissolution, then there are multiple geopolitical factors that will come into play, from water rights to mineral rights to currency issues to nuclear arsenal issues to access to internal roads. None of the issues the country has will be solved by Balkanization, in my view.

quote:

---

it will return back to 80s/90s

---

Does that mean the return of Kajagoogoo?

quote:

---

Good grief, man. You're a song bird for a strong centralized government. A statist at your heart.

---

And you are so divorced from geopolitical realities that you can't even have a discussion about real situations that actually occurred, or potential situations that might occur, without thinking I espouse a certain viewpoint.

The security dilemma is a strong reason why states, who, in an anarchic world which favors self-preservation, tend to want to be centralized. The centralizing impulse is extremely strong in pretty much all states. There are very few which are comfortable with dissolution. In those states did experience dissolution, there is either a continued security flashpoint, or there is a strong revanchist tendency among people in their government.

Regardless, I'm always willing to change my mind, provided that there is an argument. You haven't made a strong one yet.

quote:

---

They have no idea they've been completely duped by a Russian bot farm.

---

I have nothing in common culturally with most people in this country outside the American South. And it doesn't take the Russians for me to understand that if the ideas being fostered in Portland and Seattle become a majority in the halls of Congress, we'll soon be living in a dystopia. I want to be left the hell alone to raise my family, not shouted down by race pimps, spoiled athletes, tech billionaires and corrupt politicians that I'm evil because of my skin color and gender.

quote:

---

Stay out of Texas we are full.
quote:
Mid Iowa Tiger

---

Got here over 10 years ago before it was full.