you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    This has been discussed for predominantly blue states and red states, whereby predominantly red states - which normally require Federal support - would immediately go bankrupt if they seceded. So people in predominantly blue states, which tend to be richer and have higher metropolitan populations, sometimes joke that they'd happily agree to predominantly red states seceding from the union. In any event - as we know - state politics in many states is remarkably corrupt and their 1% will mercilessly abuse the residents in order to develop banana republics. Federal regulation and funding help preserve a good quality of live for most in the US, even though there are many more living in poverty than 4 years ago. Solution: stick with the American Experiment developed in the 18th century, with checks and balances in the democratic system that reduce the potential for corruption (though not as much as it should in late stage capitalism).

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This is the old argument that only the strongest should survive. It's not only anti-democratic, it's anti-human. I recommend Texas - or counties in Texas, whatever - for the trial run of this primitive idea. Note that this has already happened in a number of post-colonial African nations, and is still happening in Ethiopia, Nigeria &c.