It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[oggsmash]

  A real question for me is who starts the fight if there is a split?  Which side, red or blue acts like the shithouse crazy ex that will not let the other leave? 

[Pat]

   Saying small countries can be fucked over and less free is a non point.  The USA was established by people who wanted a nation to be a certain way (leave the people alone as much as possible) and they wrote founding documents to establish that and limit government. 

They did. And then they betrayed those principles, and wrote the Constitution.

The US that leaves people alone was under the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.

[oggsmash]

   Saying small countries can be fucked over and less free is a non point.  The USA was established by people who wanted a nation to be a certain way (leave the people alone as much as possible) and they wrote founding documents to establish that and limit government. 

They did. And then they betrayed those principles, and wrote the Constitution.

The US that leaves people alone was under the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.

  True...but the US constitution was still more limiting to government than almost all other places in the world.  There has been a shitload of "interpretation" since its ratification that has made that less relevant. 

[KindaMeh]

  A real question for me is who starts the fight if there is a split?  Which side, red or blue acts like the shithouse crazy ex that will not let the other leave?

As noted, I really hope there isn't a split, and that the nation is fixed through our own engagement and political activism. That being said, I feel like a recent poll said Republicans were most likely to fight for their nation if it was ever invaded, and Democrats responded for the most part they would flee to somewhere else. I feel like Republicans would have the will to secede, but if they did the federal government would have a harder time fighting them (because armed) and convincing the army to actually fight. Also, the Democrats in their territory might just flee rather than fight. Though that's not to say things would be bloodless or go well for the rebels. Much less afterwards, given economic reliance on the mainline USA. If on the other hand Democrats try to leave, with Republicans in national power, I predict it will be a bloodbath and they will both fail and deeply regret it. If I had to choose one to happen I'd hope for the latter, because it would send a clear signal not to try and secede, and probably be less terrible overall. As for who would start it, the secessionists would presumably try to boot out federal forces, because otherwise they lose their leadership and are still subject to federal rule, so I'd say whoever secedes starts the bloodshed probably. Then again, you never know. I really hope this is just far fetched fiction, but I know some people who are genuinely scared a new civil war is coming. (Which I guess is different from balkanization and attempted rebellion/secession, but still I feel relevant.)

[oggsmash]

  A real question for me is who starts the fight if there is a split?  Which side, red or blue acts like the shithouse crazy ex that will not let the other leave?

As noted, I really hope there isn't a split, and that the nation is fixed through our own engagement and political activism. That being said, I feel like a recent poll said Republicans were most likely to fight for their nation if it was ever invaded, and Democrats responded for the most part they would flee to somewhere else. I feel like Republicans would have the will to secede, but if they did the federal government would have a harder time fighting them (because armed) and convincing the army to actually fight. Also, the Democrats in their territory might just flee rather than fight. Though that's not to say things would be bloodless or go well for the rebels. Much less afterwards, given economic reliance on the mainline USA. If on the other hand Democrats try to leave, with Republicans in national power, I predict it will be a bloodbath and they will both fail and deeply regret it. If I had to choose one to happen I'd hope for the latter, because it would send a clear signal not to try and secede, and probably be less terrible overall. As for who would start it, the secessionists would presumably try to boot out federal forces, because otherwise they lose their leadership and are still subject to federal rule, so I'd say whoever secedes starts the bloodshed probably. Then again, you never know. I really hope this is just far fetched fiction, but I know some people who are genuinely scared a new civil war is coming. (Which I guess is different from balkanization and attempted rebellion/secession, but still I feel relevant.)

  I do not think any establishment politicians would let anyone leave.  If some populist were in actual power, I do not think he/she/they chase people leaving the union.   Democrats would NEVER secede.  They do not want smaller/independent.  They want to run the biggest show possible (and establishment republicans are essentially 90's democrats ie the same) as the striking quality current year democrats seems to be complete centralized control.   I am not sure what would happen if say a Texas said good bye....I think whoever is POTUS has to fight them...because if Texas goes, they will have company instantly if it is allowed.   I guess the upside is if we keep the trends going with the military focusing on pronoun training videos and getting rid of all the toxic masculinity, whether the Federal government wants to fight or not may not matter much.

[KindaMeh]

  A real question for me is who starts the fight if there is a split?  Which side, red or blue acts like the shithouse crazy ex that will not let the other leave?

As noted, I really hope there isn't a split, and that the nation is fixed through our own engagement and political activism. That being said, I feel like a recent poll said Republicans were most likely to fight for their nation if it was ever invaded, and Democrats responded for the most part they would flee to somewhere else. I feel like Republicans would have the will to secede, but if they did the federal government would have a harder time fighting them (because armed) and convincing the army to actually fight. Also, the Democrats in their territory might just flee rather than fight. Though that's not to say things would be bloodless or go well for the rebels. Much less afterwards, given economic reliance on the mainline USA. If on the other hand Democrats try to leave, with Republicans in national power, I predict it will be a bloodbath and they will both fail and deeply regret it. If I had to choose one to happen I'd hope for the latter, because it would send a clear signal not to try and secede, and probably be less terrible overall. As for who would start it, the secessionists would presumably try to boot out federal forces, because otherwise they lose their leadership and are still subject to federal rule, so I'd say whoever secedes starts the bloodshed probably. Then again, you never know. I really hope this is just far fetched fiction, but I know some people who are genuinely scared a new civil war is coming. (Which I guess is different from balkanization and attempted rebellion/secession, but still I feel relevant.)

  I do not think any establishment politicians would let anyone leave.  If some populist were in actual power, I do not think he/she/they chase people leaving the union.   Democrats would NEVER secede.  They do not want smaller/independent.  They want to run the biggest show possible (and establishment republicans are essentially 90's democrats ie the same) as the striking quality current year democrats seems to be complete centralized control.   I am not sure what would happen if say a Texas said good bye....I think whoever is POTUS has to fight them...because if Texas goes, they will have company instantly if it is allowed.   I guess the upside is if we keep the trends going with the military focusing on pronoun training videos and getting rid of all the toxic masculinity, whether the Federal government wants to fight or not may not matter much.

So beyond our military's general quality degrading, which I did understand, do I take it you think Republicans would be the ones to secede, or some 3rd party populist? I think you said earlier that probably neither Republican nor Democrat establishment figures would allow secession, so is it the 3rd party populists you're betting on? I kinda feel that's unlikely given what you called our duopoly system, which makes me feel a bit better. That said, IDK about Republicans not trying for it, and I think it would be bloody and protracted if they tried. That and it might damage the right and libertarians' national image a fair bit. Still, I wouldn't count the Democrats out (for trying, not succeeding), there was a movement in California for a while, and "sanctuary cities" are basically them ignoring federal law and agencies anyway. We see their preferences for that with things like drug laws not being enforced or actively declared legal at the state or city level too. IDK, if somebody makes laws they don't want, or pushes back on woke discrimination, I feel like they could be pretty intolerant and intransigent, especially if they don't think they can have the whole nation for at least a while without dropping some of their crazier principles.

[Pat]

I guess at least one of the benefits to having a national government with it's own proper Constitution, rather than balkanization, is that said national rights can be applied when States or localities don't have the political will to protect their own citizens from government infringements on said rights. Of course, the flip side being that the nation can infringe if not held to account by the Constitution and its guardians where local or state governments would not wish to tread. It still works though, so long as the Constitution is solid and its defenders honest and correct in their interpretation.

Power naturally centralizes because more and centralized power gives the corrupt who are attracted to power more of what they desire. That's the main argument against strong central powers, because it will always grow like a kudzu out of control. Look at how little remains of the bill of rights, and how the commerce and necessary and proper clauses have been abused.

The argument against decentralization is generally the busy-body argument that someone, somewhere, is going to end up doing something I don't like, and that can't be tolerated. It focuses on the possibility of a few outliers, and ignores the inverse: The certainty that a central state that imposes uniform rules on everyone will do many things badly, and the one-size-fits-all solutions will harm many individuals who don't fit nicely into the right boxes. It's the same fallacy we see in most assessments of public programs -- the assumption that the central government is beneficent and perfect, so the solution is always to give them more power and money.

Instead, we should acknowledge that both highly decentralized governments and highly centralized governments are imperfect, and compare them to see what strengths they bring to the table, and the harms they cause.

The core problem with centralized governments is they natural grow and become more powerful, and they're very hard to check. The administrative state will grow, and grow. They impose blanket solutions that will poorly fit most people to whom they apply. If they're subject to majority will, permanent minorities will never have any real representation or say. They're very hard to escape, because you have to move thousands of miles and away from anything you know, often including culture and language, to get out of their reach. There will be little or no competition. Conversely, they can impose some basic standards across everything. And they're able to mobilize more resources, in times of emergency.

The problem with small localized governments is there will be a patchwork of rules and rights, so there will be more cases where what you consider essential rights will be violated. But that's also a strength, because there's no universal agreement on natural rights, so different rights will be protected in different places. And since you can easily move from one decentralized state to the next, you can choose one that suits you better. They're much better at localized solutions for localized problems. They have to compete with each other, which will lower taxes and encourage leaders to appeal to businesses and successful figures, whether scientists or artists. And it was the balkanized nature of Europe that led to the Enlightenment, so we know they encourage creativity. You'll be able to exert less force in foreign areas, but since you'll probably rely on home-based militias, you'll be very hard to invade (cf. Switzerland during WW2). Conversely, you might have to worry about local warlords or conquerors trying to create a larger centralized state.

In general, large centralized states will appeal to the permanent bureaucratic class and politicians who seek power for the sake of power. If you're part of the bloc in power, then your standards and beliefs will be better represented, and be forced on everyone else. But you'll also suffer more uniformity, and there will less room for dissent, and a larger number of people will be eternally disenfranchised or excluded. Whereas a patchwork of small independent states, or states aligned in loose confederations will appeal more to the creative or productive types. You won't be able to impose your will and standards on all the remote outreaches, but you can find others who share many of your beliefs and ideals, and make them your neighbors.

[Pat]

I'll begin by noting that I don't think we should be running such a huge deficit, for sure, or spending money we didn't earn to feel or look better off than we are, so you make a solid point on the credit card bit.

Debt. Not deficit.

Focusing on the deficit is one of the ways politicians lie to the people they leech off of. Because the huge credit bill the US has run up is the debt, not the deficit. That's the real number (at least when we add in the fiscal gap), that's the important number. The deficit is just the rate at which we're adding to the debt. And it's basically just a political lie, because it allows politicians crow about how they reduced the deficit, and then puff out their chests like they're being fiscally responsible and making the hard choices, when all they did was add even more crap to the credit balance. Just at a slower rate than they did in some previous year. The minimum of fiscal restraint should be to stop adding to the debt. That's not lowering the deficit, that's zeroing it out completely. And to even qualify as frugal, even in the slightest way, you have to reduce the debt. Which is a negative deficit.

[oggsmash]

  A real question for me is who starts the fight if there is a split?  Which side, red or blue acts like the shithouse crazy ex that will not let the other leave?

As noted, I really hope there isn't a split, and that the nation is fixed through our own engagement and political activism. That being said, I feel like a recent poll said Republicans were most likely to fight for their nation if it was ever invaded, and Democrats responded for the most part they would flee to somewhere else. I feel like Republicans would have the will to secede, but if they did the federal government would have a harder time fighting them (because armed) and convincing the army to actually fight. Also, the Democrats in their territory might just flee rather than fight. Though that's not to say things would be bloodless or go well for the rebels. Much less afterwards, given economic reliance on the mainline USA. If on the other hand Democrats try to leave, with Republicans in national power, I predict it will be a bloodbath and they will both fail and deeply regret it. If I had to choose one to happen I'd hope for the latter, because it would send a clear signal not to try and secede, and probably be less terrible overall. As for who would start it, the secessionists would presumably try to boot out federal forces, because otherwise they lose their leadership and are still subject to federal rule, so I'd say whoever secedes starts the bloodshed probably. Then again, you never know. I really hope this is just far fetched fiction, but I know some people who are genuinely scared a new civil war is coming. (Which I guess is different from balkanization and attempted rebellion/secession, but still I feel relevant.)

  I do not think any establishment politicians would let anyone leave.  If some populist were in actual power, I do not think he/she/they chase people leaving the union.   Democrats would NEVER secede.  They do not want smaller/independent.  They want to run the biggest show possible (and establishment republicans are essentially 90's democrats ie the same) as the striking quality current year democrats seems to be complete centralized control.   I am not sure what would happen if say a Texas said good bye....I think whoever is POTUS has to fight them...because if Texas goes, they will have company instantly if it is allowed.   I guess the upside is if we keep the trends going with the military focusing on pronoun training videos and getting rid of all the toxic masculinity, whether the Federal government wants to fight or not may not matter much.

So beyond our military's general quality degrading, which I did understand, do I take it you think Republicans would be the ones to secede, or some 3rd party populist? I think you said earlier that probably neither Republican nor Democrat establishment figures would allow secession, so is it the 3rd party populists you're betting on? I kinda feel that's unlikely given what you called our duopoly system, which makes me feel a bit better. That said, IDK about Republicans not trying for it, and I think it would be bloody and protracted if they tried. That and it might damage the right and libertarians' national image a fair bit. Still, I wouldn't count the Democrats out (for trying, not succeeding), there was a movement in California for a while, and "sanctuary cities" are basically them ignoring federal law and agencies anyway. We see their preferences for that with things like drug laws not being enforced or actively declared legal at the state or city level too. IDK, if somebody makes laws they don't want, or pushes back on woke discrimination, I feel like they could be pretty intolerant and intransigent, especially if they don't think they can have the whole nation for at least a while without dropping some of their crazier principles.

  I think "republican" is a funny word these days.  I think Texans might secede.  I also think the republican party is getting hijacked big time by a populist movement.  So I am not so sure a republican (in so far as one on the street) would look anything like it looked in say 2001.    This is a BIG freaking country.  A 4th generation Texan can have a set of values and principles that make him look like someone from a completely different country and culture from a 4th generation New Yorker.    I also think the democrats of today who have sway look nothing like a democrat from 2001.  But no establishment mook R or D is going to want their big government power to wane.  A populist of right or left flavor?  Well...I am not so sure.  Trump was terrifying not because of mean tweets, but because he took the mantle without "permission" from the power brokers.    So who knows what we see down the road.

   Republican example...I have NEVER voted for a Republican in a national election until trump in 2016.  I was more or less a two issue voter (Hillary is beyond clear on her stance with gun control, trump at least pretending he was not into restrictions) guns, and of all fucking things, not putting a boy who says he is a girl into a locker room with my daughter.  Trump was willing to draw a line that anyone with a brain could understand made 100 percent sense.   Trump was a 1985-2000ish era democrat.  When those positions are considered "far right extremism"  this ship is headed towards and iceberg.   

[KindaMeh]

I guess at least one of the benefits to having a national government with it's own proper Constitution, rather than balkanization, is that said national rights can be applied when States or localities don't have the political will to protect their own citizens from government infringements on said rights. Of course, the flip side being that the nation can infringe if not held to account by the Constitution and its guardians where local or state governments would not wish to tread. It still works though, so long as the Constitution is solid and its defenders honest and correct in their interpretation.

Power naturally centralizes because more and centralized power gives the corrupt who are attracted to power more of what they desire. That's the main argument against strong central powers, because it will always grow like a kudzu out of control. Look at how little remains of the bill of rights, and how the commerce and necessary and proper clauses have been abused.

The argument against decentralization is generally the busy-body argument that someone, somewhere, is going to end up doing something I don't like, and that can't be tolerated. It focuses on the possibility of a few outliers, and ignores the inverse: The certainty that a central state that imposes uniform rules on everyone will do many things badly, and the one-size-fits-all solutions will harm many individuals who don't fit nicely into the right boxes. It's the same fallacy we see in most assessments of public programs -- the assumption that the central government is beneficent and perfect, so the solution is always to give them more power and money.

Instead, we should acknowledge that both highly decentralized governments and highly centralized governments are imperfect, and compare them to see what strengths they bring to the table, and the harms they cause.

The core problem with centralized governments is they natural grow and become more powerful, and they're very hard to check. The administrative state will grow, and grow. They impose blanket solutions that will poorly fit most people to whom they apply. If they're subject to majority will, permanent minorities will never have any real representation or say. They're very hard to escape, because you have to move thousands of miles and away from anything you know, often including culture and language, to get out of their reach. There will be little or no competition. Conversely, they can impose some basic standards across everything. And they're able to mobilize more resources, in times of emergency.

The problem with small localized governments is there will be a patchwork of rules and rights, so there will be more cases where what you consider essential rights will be violated. But that's also a strength, because there's no universal agreement on natural rights, so different rights will be protected in different places. And since you can easily move from one decentralized state to the next, you can choose one that suits you better. They're much better at localized solutions for localized problems. They have to compete with each other, which will lower taxes and encourage leaders to appeal to businesses and successful figures, whether scientists or artists. And it was the balkanized nature of Europe that led to the Enlightenment, so we know they encourage creativity. You'll be able to exert less force in foreign areas, but since you'll probably rely on home-based militias, you'll be very hard to invade (cf. Switzerland during WW2). Conversely, you might have to worry about local warlords or conquerors trying to create a larger centralized state.

In general, large centralized states will appeal to the permanent bureaucratic class and politicians who seek power for the sake of power. If you're part of the bloc in power, then your standards and beliefs will be better represented, and be forced on everyone else. But you'll also suffer more uniformity, and there will less room for dissent, and a larger number of people will be eternally disenfranchised or excluded. Whereas a patchwork of small independent states, or states aligned in loose confederations will appeal more to the creative or productive types. You won't be able to impose your will and standards on all the remote outreaches, but you can find others who share many of your beliefs and ideals, and make them your neighbors.

Given the size of Texas, IDK if it would wind up being a small nation state. Heck, most of our states are the size of countries. But that being said, you do make points for decentralized and localized power, and a constrained federal government, which I do indeed like. I kinda think that a good national constitution when properly not distorted and kept more or less as intended is cool in that it can limit those giant nation sized states under the nation when they seek to overstep and go hyper authoritarian in a given way. But it also gives them the opportunity to make their own laws and state/local governments, providing a competition in ideals and governing models that gives way to growth. I also think that while decentralization may beat centralization on rights if carried to its logical extreme, a balance towards decentralization but not utter decentralization is the ideal, and allows the interaction noted earlier in this post. Also, I feel like an absolutely centralized government can function, though it will ruthlessly oppress the minority unless the majority is very tolerant, whereas an utterly decentralized government is anarchy more than government and leaves a vulnerability to outside threats. That, and it's not really clear how decentralized one should go once balkanization has started. Who stops Houston from seceding from Texas once we've decided secession is the answer to ideological conflict? And do we really think a patchwork of such tiny and rivalrous states can effectively hold their own, and the like, on the global stage or even what used to be the national one? I know this is just theorycrafting, but I think that's where I stand. For all its flaws, I think our system is one of the better ones out there, and I am loathe to abandon it when it could still potentially be reformed.

ex: If Trump can double the deficit on Republican watch somehow, I feel like a sufficiently skilled politician backed by an engaged public could get rid of it. I said we shouldn't be running such a huge deficit when it was said we shouldn't fuel our nation by "credit card", but by that I meant we need to not run one at all. Because when we do so we're fueling our nation with money we did not earn. And eventually those debts are called due, and you lose the home that is your country.

[Pat]

Given the size of Texas, IDK if it would wind up being a small nation state. Heck, most of our states are the size of countries.

When I refer to "state", I'm not talking about the 50 subdivisions of the US. I'm talking about sovereign political entities. In general, my argument for decentralization isn't based on the US's conception of states. I think a lot of federal power should be shifted to the states, but I also think a lot of power should be shifted to lower levels of government, typically municipalities (possibly counties, cities, etc.). As much power as possible should be shifted as far down as possible.

But the first battles will be at the state(US)-level, because the Constitution specifically delegates powers to the states, but not to local governments (except in the nebulous not-specifically-referenced sense of the 10th amendment). DeSantis, for instance, has drawn the line that he believes in (US) states' rights vis-a-vis the federal government, but that municipalities are at the whim of the state's power, which I don't agree with.

[KindaMeh]

Given the size of Texas, IDK if it would wind up being a small nation state. Heck, most of our states are the size of countries.

When I refer to "state", I'm not talking about the 50 subdivisions of the US. I'm talking about sovereign political entities. In general, my argument for decentralization isn't based on the US's conception of states. I think a lot of federal power should be shifted to the states, but I also think a lot of power should be shifted to lower levels of government, typically municipalities (possibly counties, cities, etc.). As much power as possible should be shifted as far down as possible.

But the first battles will be at the state(US)-level, because the Constitution specifically delegates powers to the states, but not to local governments (except on the nebulous not-specifically-referenced sense of the 10th amendment). DeSantis, for instance, has drawn the line that he believes in (US) states rights vis-a-vis the federal government, but that municipalities are at the whim of the state's power, which I don't agree with.

Fair enough. I don't think we're too far apart in our preferences, then. Also, depressing to hear where even DeSantis, posterboy of the right, stands on that.

[Pat]

I kinda think that a good national constitution when properly not distorted and kept more or less as intended is cool in that it can limit those giant nation sized states under the nation when they seek to overstep and go hyper authoritarian in a given way.

I'm a fan of natural rights, which I think should be protected against any government. They're not granted by the government, they're essential rights which governments should never be allowed to violate.

But I'm highly skeptical of the value of constitutions. Look at the US Constitution -- how few of the enumerated rights in the Constitution remain?

Written words mean nothing. They only have force if a large part of the body politic, including officials whose job is to enforce or interpret those laws, hold them in their hearts. And very few people know what the Constitution says, much less agree with it, these days. Failing that, it will be continually eroded, just like the Constitution has been continually eroded over the 20th century until almost nothing is left.

Who stops Houston from seceding from Texas once we've decided secession is the answer to ideological conflict? And do we really think a patchwork of such tiny and rivalrous states can effectively hold their own, and the like, on the global stage or even what used to be the national one? I know this is just theorycrafting, but I think that's where I stand. For all its flaws, I think our system is one of the better ones out there, and I am loathe to abandon it when it could still potentially be reformed.

Who has the right to stop Houston from seceding? The free choice to choose your own government should be the most basic of all rights.

And sure, small can be effective. Swizterland has done fine, and bats well out of its weight class in world politics. And if there's a problematic country that wants to take over, that's what alliances and federations are for.

ex: If Trump can double the deficit on Republican watch somehow, I feel like a sufficiently skilled politician backed by an engaged public could get rid of it. I said we shouldn't be running such a huge deficit when it was said we shouldn't fuel our nation by "credit card", but by that I meant we need to not run one at all. Because when we do so we're fueling our nation with money we did not earn. And eventually those debts are called due, and you lose the home that is your country.

It's a lot more complex than that. It's going to be very hard to get rid of that debt, because the amount is staggering. $30 trillion is about 8 times the entire federal government's budget, and a 1-1/2 times the entire nation's gross national product. And that's just the official debt, which is a very fake number. The estimated fiscal gap, which is the real debt, including unfunded commitments, is about 8 times higher.

Also, it's gotten bad enough that just servicing the debt is about a half a trillion a year. And that's with interest rates at historical record lows -- we're paying roughly 1.5% on those loans. if rates jumped up to even the low range of historical norms, say 6%, then the interest payments would be half the federal budget. And if we jumped to a period of high interest rates, the amount could become a significant portion of the nation's GDP.

Which is why the Fed won't raise interest rates to anything near what's needed to keep inflation in check, because it would immediately bankrupt the federal government.

The only real solutions at this point are:
1) Fix spending at current levels, and then grow out of the debt. In 60 years, maybe, the economy might be large enough to pay it off. But telling politicians this is it you can spend no more is far beyond the range of political feasibility.
2) Inflate the money supply. Give China two $1 trillion dollar bills to buy back their treasuries, for instance. This could cause hyperinflation.
3) Default. Just refuse to pay. This might be the best bet, because it would wreck the "full faith and credit of the United States". Nobody would want to loan money to the US federal government, which means politicians wouldn't be able to spend insane amounts of money they don't have.

[KindaMeh]

I kinda think that a good national constitution when properly not distorted and kept more or less as intended is cool in that it can limit those giant nation sized states under the nation when they seek to overstep and go hyper authoritarian in a given way.

I'm a fan of natural rights, which I think should be protected against any government. They're not granted by the government, they're essential rights which governments should never be allowed to violate.

But I'm highly skeptical of the value of constitutions. Look at the US Constitution -- how few of the enumerated rights in the Constitution remain?

Written words mean nothing. They only have force if a large part of the body politic, including officials whose job is to enforce or interpret those laws, hold them in their hearts. And very few people know what the Constitution says, much less agree with it, these days. Failing that, it will be continually eroded, just like the Constitution has been continually eroded over the 20th century until almost nothing is left.

Who stops Houston from seceding from Texas once we've decided secession is the answer to ideological conflict? And do we really think a patchwork of such tiny and rivalrous states can effectively hold their own, and the like, on the global stage or even what used to be the national one? I know this is just theorycrafting, but I think that's where I stand. For all its flaws, I think our system is one of the better ones out there, and I am loathe to abandon it when it could still potentially be reformed.

Who has the right to stop Houston from seceding? The free choice to choose your own government should be the most basic of all rights.

And sure, small can be effective. Swizterland has done fine, and bats well out of its weight class in world politics. And if there's a problematic country that wants to take over, that's what alliances and federations are for.

ex: If Trump can double the deficit on Republican watch somehow, I feel like a sufficiently skilled politician backed by an engaged public could get rid of it. I said we shouldn't be running such a huge deficit when it was said we shouldn't fuel our nation by "credit card", but by that I meant we need to not run one at all. Because when we do so we're fueling our nation with money we did not earn. And eventually those debts are called due, and you lose the home that is your country.

It's a lot more complex than that. It's going to be very hard to get rid of that debt, because the amount is staggering. $30 trillion is about 8 times the entire federal government's budget, and a 1-1/2 times the entire nation's gross national product. And that's just the official debt, which is a very fake number. The estimated fiscal gap, which is the real debt, including unfunded commitments, is about 8 times higher.

Also, it's gotten bad enough that just servicing the debt is about a half a trillion a year. And that's with interest rates at historical record lows -- we're paying roughly 1.5% on those loans. if rates jumped up to even the low range of historical norms, say 6%, then the interest payments would be half the federal budget. And if we jumped to a period of high interest rates, the amount could become a significant portion of the nation's GDP.

Which is why the Fed won't raise interest rates to anything near what's needed to keep inflation in check, because it would immediately bankrupt the federal government.

The only real solutions at this point are:
1) Fix spending at current levels, and then grow out of the debt. In 60 years, maybe, the economy might be large enough to pay it off. But telling politicians this is it you can spend no more is far beyond the range of political feasibility.
2) Inflate the money supply. Give China two $1 trillion dollar bills to buy back their treasuries, for instance. This could cause hyperinflation.
3) Default. Just refuse to pay. This might be the best bet, because it would wreck the "full faith and credit of the United States". Nobody would want to loan money to the US federal government, which means politicians wouldn't be able to spend insane amounts of money they don't have.

Firstly thank you for explaining that last point to me. I was kinda wondering why the Federal Reserve seemed to be so incompetent with respect to inflation. (Kinda think we shouldn't have dropped rates as low or cut taxes without reducing spending (Forcing us to later print money, I think?) as much as we did under Trump, though, or made it so banks didn't have to hold any money in reserve. I understand he thought we needed the boost, but still, I think in a way Biden was aided and abetted in what was done on inflation.) Also, I am now very depressed.

Working my way up your points, what stops a neighborhood from leaving Houston? What I mean is not how do you use physical force to prevent a municipality from having its rightful powers, but where do you draw the line at which say, a small group of individuals or gang can't just walk on in and say "Welp, this land's ours now, we are a government." Or otherwise prevent folks from just leaving justice behind them by declaring a gated community of pedophiles or whatever. Also, Switzerland is one thing, a small town is another. I don't know, I feel like any government needs a monopoly on defining (but not the actual) legitimate use of force and some degree of say over who can and cannot ignore the jurisdiction of the majority. If small communities were sufficient for their own governmental protection in this day and age, and the ideal top level of self-governance, I don't think things would look the way they do now. To be clear, I think power needs to be decentralized, but I think it needs to be a multi-level system like the one we have only modified with powers growing thinner as they go up, and the like.

I think Constitutions and written documentation and analysis of rights are still key, for all their faults. Because the judiciary can and has at times prevented authoritarian rule and the violation of natural rights, both at the national level and at the local levels many want to delegate great power to. And we still have some of the original Constitution despite centuries of would-be autocrats trying to tear it down. I agree that when the populous understands the Constitution, and holds it in their hearts wholeheartedly, it works better, but I still feel some guardrails against overreach and authoritarianism are better than none. (That said, I do fear unrighteous judges who knowingly dissemble and misinterpret. Those are potentially quite dangerous authoritarians at any level in any system, and I do think more should be done about that and to guard against it and see that somebody watches the watchers at least to some degree. Heck, even if it's a circle of watchers staring vaguely in one anothers' direction. There needs to be accountability, too, when you hold that much power.) 

Essentially, I think our current system can be reformed to grant power to the localities without balkanization, without secession, without a trail to utter fragmentation, and without unnecessary bloodshed.

[oggsmash]

  Shared values and principles allow for all that independence to have some solidarity.  Right now, I am not sure what a list of American values would look like if I were to ask a bunch of people from a few different states and localities.  I am not sure they would know how to answer the question.  Nation has to have Common language, common customs and values, and borders.   The USA is falling on the first, pretty much in turmoil on the second, and well the third.....  This is a shit show headed to the iceberg.  We were funding gender studies and trans awareness in universities in afghanistan.....is is surprising the locals couldnt get the taliban in there fast enough when the USA left?  Speaking of which, how much blood, money, youth and vigor was spent from brave men in the USA in Afghanistan?  How much permanent damage was done to people sent over there to fight, kill, bleed....for what?  Guarding poppy fields and promoting gender studies?   

   The USA is salvageable, that I agree with, but I think the strength of measures to pull that off is beyond any politicians (aka narcissists beholden to wealthy special interests) on any radar.