The "United States" is not a real country

It is just a bitterly divided group of people fighting over Washington DC and its four trillion tax dollars. The solution is to just close Washington DC. Let Democrats run their states how they want and let Republicans run their states how they want. The only thing we need to keep in place is the military and a free trade agreement between the states. Each state would have to pay about $10.5 billion a year to maintain the DOD's current rate of spending. Of course, we would save lots money on the military by reducing our massive troop concentrations abroad. The Navy ports can stay, but everyone else has to come back home. So after reducing those costs I think each state would have to pay about $6-$8 billion a year to maintain a "proper" defense apparatus. To be honest, I think the American people would just voluntarily finance the military. It would cost each of us $1,700 a year. Some people wouldn't pay anything, whereas others would probably pay a lot more than that.

 

I already involuntarily pay much much more than $1,700 a year.

 

There are no "legitimate" nations. Only areas maintained under central powers via force and propaganda.

They were all captured and established with force, and are maintained with force. The entire world of political boundaries and governments is completely laughable.

Mankind and its arrangements are a joke on intelligence. Elephants are better organized.

 

Laughable? There have always been borders of one kind or another from hunting areas defined by tribes to todays borders. It is just a fact of life.

 

Communist tribes did not know of or consider private property. They fought because they were still uncivilized hunters and gatherers. There are ways to maintain private property without the government, which always seems to be the biggest threat against private property.

Homesteading expansion in the west was thwarted through government interference on behalf of wealthy westerners who preferred that the settlers bought land from them at higher prices. Thus, you have most of the west as federal lands.

The entire freakin world is shaped by con artists with a monopoly of law and force.

 

My argument is supported by the facts. There is a bitter divide between the political bases of the American "left and "right", both of whom are slaves to the election cycle. That's because whoever wins control of the Federal government gets to decide what happens to the four trillion dollar slush-fund in DC. It's nothing but rent-seekers and special interests as far as the eye can see. Shut it down and send the moochers home.

I assume if you had to pay zero taxes that you would volunteer to pay $1,700 to maintain a national defense force?

 

EVERY country is a divided power struggle, except maybe North Korea who force their people to worship their leaders with a gun to their backs.

 

A confederacy with a national government consisting of a co-op amongst states sounds ideal.

 

all countries are divided and would still be even if you split them up. And that has nothing to do with them being countries or not.

 

"A nation divided against itself cannot stand" - Abraham Lincoln

Despite our differences in beliefs and ideologies, in times of peril, we unite as one nation to fight our threats. Our unity as a nation of states and a nation of people are what make us unique. We often find ourselves pitted against each other, but when faced with a common foe, we form a force that stuns the world and the very fabric of history. Separation because of political differences will only make us weak as a whole.

 

The blue states fund the red states.

 

I'd like the idea of dividing into 50 countries too, although I would definitely leave NC if that happened. Washington and Oregon would be pretty cool independent countries though.

 

America is more like a gaggle of states with different laws, ideas and customs,, all wanting to break free. A little like Yugoslavia during the Tito years.

 

And Blue state's murder and crime rate compensates for the Red states lack thereof.

- - - Updated - - -

If i had to choose, it either be Indiana or Texas as an independent nation. Corn and Guns! Yeehaw! lol

 

Depends on what you mean by a "country". If it's a group of people who share a common language and geography, then couldn't a family be their own country? Or is there some magic number that makes a group of people into a real country as opposed to some sham one? How does a "country" come into existence?

If they are "divided", how can they be a "country"?

 

I think it would be amazing to experience the diversity of fifty different sovereign countries within North America. They could all sign a mutual defense pact and free trade (which includes travel) agreement and NOTHING ELSE. As long as people had the right to travel freely between the states, it would insure that each state was sufficiently motivated to maintain good government and to adapt with the times.

 

There are no blue states, only blue cities (LA, Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Washington DC), and they produce relatively little food and energy while consuming relatively large amounts of both.

 

Can I get a federal government subsidy on the $1700?

 

what happens to Saipan?

 

It has nothing to do with language or geography. A country is a sovereign state. If you find a familiy that's independent and sovereign with authority over an area they'd be a country.

why are you assuming countries cannot be diveded?

 

A country has nothing to do with language or geography?

Which is what, exactly?

Independent from what? Don't they have "authority" over their homes and their property?

Because a "country" is just an abstraction. It's about shared meaning and culture between individuals. If people lack a shared meaning and culture, that is, they are divided, they can't really be a "country" in any meaningful sense.

 

They will become an autonomous region, same as the rest of the so-called US territories. Naturally, they will continue to benefit from US naval presence in the region and around the globe.

 

i don't see how this benifits the CNMI, or anyone but China with China getting all expansionist and junk.

 

Great idea, but there are cetain political groups (ahem, the Liberals) who like power. Loosing the federal government is not what they want. Strengthening it? Yes. Using more money? Yes. Dropping it? Definitely not.

Plus, the way things are going, why on earth would the Liberals setting for half the states when you can have them all under a central, powerful, unified, expensive government?

 

Well, I'm more concerned with my own than the "CNMI". Still, I stipulated that the US's naval ports (along requisite logistical facilities) would remain in operation, and that a US naval presence would be maintained throughout the globe as a means of securing our rights to international trade and travel. Naturally, the CNMI would fall under the de facto protection of our naval assets while maintaining their own political and regional autonomy, as is their right.