I'm very much afraid several of its forms are looming on the horizon. — Vera Mont

Ditto.

The task is simple:  You are in charge of halting the current national trajectory, breaking apart the existing political/governmental structure, and devising a system of localized authorities which can both function as various entities and exist (and flourish) within the current and future global community. — Elysium House

Actually, the US has far too many states. Put them together.

- First of all, fuck Washington DC. That the Capitol is so "important" is pure bullshit. Add it to Maryland, actually make Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey one state for starters.

- The objective could be to have just 20 states that are somewhat equally distributed in population.

- Decrease the number of Federal executive departments and give the control 100% to the states. You need only State, Defense, Interior and Justice departments. Nothing else. So off with the executive departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban development, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. And if even the States start to whine about their excessive new work and demand federal level coordination, then simply put them into the department of Interior. It's incredible that you have to have such departments like Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security at the level of a federal executive department.

- Emphasize and empower the county/municipial level.

- reduce the police state.

It's just a name. The states haven't been united since the drawing of the Mason-Dixon line. Some federal governments, in some economic climates were able to hold it together more effectively than others, but in the last 40 years - since Reagan - the divide has been growing wider, while other rifts have been opening up. I see no way to reconciliation. — Vera Mont

The problematic aspect of your lament over the dissolution of state's rights was that the war that formally drew them legally bound together under the same Constitution was not one fought for any lofty principle. It was fought to protect the institution of slavery by a confederacy that did nothing to try to protect the individual state rights within its confederacy. It's just that South wanted its own slave protecting laws for its region and so it went to war.

As to the division between the left and the right, that geographical division is best defined not by drawing a line somewhere north of Maryland and meandering south of Missouri, but instead by drawing circles around major metropolitan areas and leaving out suburban and urban areas. The Atlantans, for example, probably won't be fighting alongside their suburban neighbors to the north.

Since Americans have no particular allegiance to certain state lands, as if someone would proclaim they will fight and die for the great state of Iowa or the like, the insurgents would be left fighting over ideology alone, unattached to any love of land. In the Civil War, ideology was attached to land, as it was the slaves who were fueling that economy in that region. So, if the right or the left wants to fight a civil war, they will have to come from all regions and band together under a unified flag.

In any event, the last great resurrection ended with a handful of crazies getting locked up after storming the Capital.

We live in a world beset by truly global collective action problems: climate change, ocean acidification, the power of transnational megacorps, global inequality driving human migration on scales never seen before, etc.

I don't see how things can be improved through further decentralization. I could certainly see improvements from splitting up the United States, but only in the context of there being regional (e.g. EU, AU) governments with power analogous to that of the federal government in the United States. And ideally, these regional organizations would be organs of a global government.

But, provided we have such a global government, then it seems much more feasible to dissolve the United States and actually improve things. The US and China (and soon, India) with their huge economies and huge share of global votes would probably be a serious barrier to global governance actually, so the two moves would work together.

I had the thread on "Exponential Elector Selection," earlier. I don't know if that's the right mechanism for selecting leaders, but I think you want to keep leaders accountable through some sort of popular selection mechanism, while also doing more to professionalize the leadership than popular vote democracy does.

Particularism will be part of any successful regional/global governance scheme. You need the more global level to deal with collective action problems, corruption, and security, while local entities deal with day to day management.

your lament — Hanover

My what???

over the dissolution of state's rights — Hanover

Over which???

The states had way too much independence at the time of federation; that's why the southern ones were given that concession to keep slavery in what purported to be a union based on the principle

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That, plus the independence states already held from the colonial arrangement, were the fatal flaws that doomed this nation to disunity.

It was fought to protect the institution of slavery by a confederacy that did nothing to try to protect the individual state rights within its confederacy. — Hanover

Obviously. However, the fact that they still had slavery in the first place, and were determined to spread it to new territories, which would then outnumber the slaveless states, made war inevitable. Besides, that was the cover story.

States' Rights The Rallying Cry of Secession
Southerners consistently argued for states rights and a weak federal government but it was not until the 1850s that they raised the issue of secession. Southerners argued that, having ratified the Constitution and having agreed to join the new nation in the late 1780s, they retained the power to cancel the agreement and they threatened to do just that unless, as South Carolinian John C. Calhoun put it, the Senate passed a constitutional amendment to give back to the South “the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium of the two sections was destroyed.”

Hardly any war is really about its slogans and recruiting cons.

As to the division between the left and the right, that geographical division is best defined not by drawing a line somewhere north of Maryland and meandering south of Missouri, but instead by drawing circles around major metropolitan areas and leaving out suburban and urban areas — Hanover

That's not how it originally happened; that's just how it plays out with the opposing powers: upward mobility and education vs economic morbidity and facile propaganda.

the insurgents would be left fighting over ideology alone, — Hanover

Each civil war is different. They're not 'insurgencies'; they're popular uprisings over unbearable oppression or mismanagement, or irreconcilable differences over religion, or factions supporting two or more bidders for the seat of government, or - indeed, ideological rifts too deep to bridge. Oddly enough, this next one may well have a genuine element of states rights in some cases, depending on whether a truly egregious far right regime takes federal power.

In any event, the last great resurrection ended with a handful of crazies getting locked up after storming the Capital. — Hanover

And you think that made them and their "cause" disappear?

The problematic aspect of your lament over the dissolution of state's rights was that the war that formally drew them legally bound together under the same Constitution was not one fought for any lofty principle. It was fought to protect the institution of slavery by a confederacy that did nothing to try to protect the individual state rights within its confederacy. It's just that South wanted its own slave protecting laws for its region and so it went to war. — Hanover

Why was slavery important enough to fight and to secede over? Money! the collective value of all slaves in the US was $4 billion in 1860. That was a substantial share of all wealth in the US at the time. $4 Billion in 1860 would be worth about $143 Billion in 2023 inflated dollars. In today's national indebtedness of $23 Trillion, 143 Billion doesn't seem like it would be worth going to war over. But $4 Billion was a much large amount of money in 1860 than $143 Billion today.

The dollar cost of slave-produced goods (like cotton bales, iron, tobacco, bricks, etc.) was much lower than could be achieved by employing wage labor. There was also a critical social factor: The social and political preeminence of the planter class depended on the profitability of the slave-labor system. They were, of course, loathe to relinquish their high-status, powerful position.

The south was in fact suspicious of federal power. For that matter, many in the southern states were suspicious of any centralized power, within and between states. Consequently, canals and railroads were built mostly within state boundaries, rather than across state lines. Many canals were built to benefit one or two plantations, rather than a larger area.

The Civil war forced the states in the confederacy to build networks of regional railroad and telegraph lines.

resurrection — Hanover

Spell Czech apparently preferred "resurrection" over "insurrection"? It never explains it's preferences!

Actually, the US has far too many states. Put them together. — ssu

Instant fail! Just kidding, I'm listening . . .

First of all, fuck Washington DC. That the Capitol is so "important" is pure bullshit. Add it to Maryland, actually make Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey one state for starters. — ssu

The objective could be to have just 20 states that are somewhat equally distributed in population.

- Decrease the number of Federal executive departments and give the control 100% to the states. You need only State, Defense, Interior and Justice departments. Nothing else. So off with the executive departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban development, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. — ssu

It's good we're thinking more broadly and with more creativity here. Keep "exploring the space."

And if even the States start to whine about their excessive new work and demand federal level coordination, then simply put them into the department of Interior. — ssu

Careful: The object of the game is to minimize the government AND create a new system that is preferable. The sins of the transition will not be lost on the people, and their happiness and approval is necessary for your system to be proven the better.

Emphasize and empower the county/municipial level. — ssu

Let's definitely analyze your approach to this process. What's your strategy on this so far?

reduce the police state. — ssu

Do you have crossover standards (that each new state would have to adhere to) for what this would entail? Who polices this?

I'm giving you points for moxie so far, but remember what it means to "win" this thought experiment.

Bonus question: Who decides on the state lines/territory divisions?

Maybe you have heard of, or read Joel Garreau's Nine Nations of North America. Garreau divides up the continent into 9 regions that presumably have similar demographics, industries, and politics. His is not the only attempt to do this.

The problem with a new division of the country is finding the right basis to draw boundaries. Cultural, industrial, and agricultural similarities may not overlap. For instance, Minnesota and Massachusetts have much more in common culturally than Minnesota and Louisiana do. Both may be agricultural producers, but are otherwise not very similar economically, culturally, or sociologically.

It's a fun game to play, and there is certainly some validity to some of the arrangements. But there are mistakes to make too. Garreau's identification of the Rocky Mountains as "The Empty Quarter" overlooks the large agricultural and industrial establishment of Alberta, Canada.

BC, first, thank you for the reading recommendation. I am a bookworm and always looking for more. Please understand, this discussion must continue. It is about creativity, not appeal to authority. You have clearly voiced your concerns. Please, try to have fun (if, at least, just in this discussion).

Did he also shove Labrador and Newfoundland in with New England? I doubt it. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, maybe. What have Iowa, Oklahoma and Ontario have in common? No, the geography is all screwed up. I don't exactly understand the second map. All those areas - well, everywhere, really! - can expect to undergo changes, many of which are unpredictable. Not to mention the flood of climate and economic refugees pushing right up through the middle with not enough water or food, getting shot at and no way to retreat.
It may be a fun game to play today, but the main driver of actual events will not be politics but nature.

It's an example, not my recommended approach.

Garreau published the book in 1981; some of his identifications--like The Foundry--were already out of date. His "foundry" had been turning into the rust belt it is today. I'm not sure how familiar Garreau was with the geography of some of the country. His point, though, is worth considering: Various areas of the US have affinities with each other that are not represented by state boundaries.

He (or some one else, can't remember the name) identified a band of "yankee culture" running west from New England to the upper Midwest created by migration from the east to the west. Within this band citizens expect the state to serve as a vehicle for positive social change through health and education, for instance, Welfare benefits are generous in this band, and firearm deaths tend to be among the lowest in the country most of the time -- much lower than New Orleans, for example.

In a number of southern states, the role of the state is much more constrained.

Dixie isn't as homogeneous as it used to be, and the southern breadbasket area belongs with the south -- culturally and demographically.

and so on...

I view reorganizing the map as a game -- not as a serious enterprise. Some states could merge, I think (the Dakotas for instance) and some states could split -- Californians have talked about a three way split for years. But what makes CA a powerhouse is the varied economic zones within the state and a huge population. Some states have both a large agriculture sector and an equally large urban business sector. The combination helps states (like some Midwestern states) weather fluctuations in economic conditions better.

Various areas of the US have affinities with each other that are not represented by state boundaries. — BC

I've always been in full agreement with that. The same is true of Canada. The prairie provinces have more in common with the prairie states, geographically, economically, in demographics, religious and political conservatism, than they have with Ontario, Quebec* or the west coast. The west and north-east coasts also have more south-north affinity than east-west.

Obviously, I have a huge problem with Canada joining the vastly more powerful US, because our political and judicial systems would be subsumed by what I consider a badly designed and damaged arrangement. However, if self-defined regional governments were re-invented from the ground up, all of them might work better than they do now.

*Far beyond any chance of reunion with the Francophile American population; they've taken very different paths, neither of them boring, I'll give 'em that!

Yes, it is an interesting thought-experiment. Forces us to think about how people actually live and think; what might benefit them, what they would prefer.... Besides, whatever solution precludes armed violence is preferable. But we have to be aware that all those firearms and all those long-smouldering hostilities do exist and will not be denied.

A world government without some Bill of Rights similar to what America has is a non-starter. I don't see the current Chinese leadership agreeing to that.

A world government without some Bill of Rights similar to what America has is a non-starter. — RogueAI

The UN declaration is better. And the US doesn't agree to most UN treaties either.

For a country frequently looked to as a global leader, the United States has consistently failed to step up in international partnerships. In fact, the United States has one of the worst records of any country in ratifying human rights and environmental treaties.

It's pretty good.

Absolutely. That's one of the main things you need the higher level "global" state for, securing rights.

I don't know what you mean about China. In its current form, it's hard to imagine the Chinese establishment agreeing with a bill of rights that would enshrine free speech protections.

Unfortunately, your most powerful players, those best able to foster the emergence of some sort of global governance, are also those with the largest incentive to avoid the formation of such a thing.

I don't know what you mean about China. In its current form, it's hard to imagine the Chinese establishment agreeing with a bill of rights that would enshrine free speech protections. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's what I meant. Chinese leadership won't buy into a world government with rights like Vera Mont linked, so it seems the whole thing is DOA until China reforms.

It's a fun game to play, and there is certainly some validity to some of the arrangements. But there are mistakes to make too. — BC

This book is available on Archive.org if anyone is looking.
https://archive.org/search?query=The+nine+nations
I think you have to have an account and login to read for free. Started getting into it this morning and you're right, it's pretty good so far. Thanks again!

so it seems the whole thing is DOA until China reforms. — RogueAI

And Russia reforms and the US reforms. They won't do it voluntarily, not any of 'em. So they'd have to break up - very probably thorough violent conflict - before any kind of re-forming can take place. Which really does not bode well for the world.

They won't do it voluntarily, not any of 'em — Vera Mont

Wait a minute. The USSR collapsed peacefully, after which Russia went through a period of deformation, then reformation, now deformation again. Is reform the next stop?

China recovered from the Cultural Revolution of Mao, and with the non-violent help of the US, became a manufacturing and infrastructure building giant. Hundred of millions are better off now than they were. I don't like Xi, but he won't live forever. the US has carried out reforms. Civil Rights, establishing the EPA (under Nixon), improved infrastructure, establishing the principle of 1 person/one vote (1962) principle, and so on.

I have seen no proof presented that breaking up large nation-states is an unalloyed good or even slightly helpful.

Careful: The object of the game is to minimize the government AND create a new system that is preferable. — Elysium House

Do not overestimate the changes here. For example in Finland we have had municipalities and districts put together and made larger, but the changes to the bureaucracy isn't as radical as one could anticipate. The basic result often is that some bureaucratic service you need that once was close by, now is somewhere really far away. That's basically what happens from the viewpoint of the citizen.

You can have some reductions. But do not forget that a working government is also beneficial and there usually are those who want to abuse the changes in their own benefit even if it worsens the situation of the people in general: Reducing government is usually one way to benefit the rich.

Interesting. Of course there's a bit of ironic twist here: In order to have states being put together, meaning that many state employees would lose jobs and many states capitals would lose their position, you need a very strong Federal level. Because who else would make such decisions? The States themselves?

Also what is an interesting question is how much does the state mean to US Citizen? Let's take for example the "South Central" mega-state: How much people in Texas feel as Texans while how many Oklahomans or people from New Mexico think their state is important? Because I assume Texas, with it's different history of even being basically independent for a time means a lot to Texans.

I assume it's far more easier to close and integrate federal departments than to "take away" Texas from the Texans.

Wait a minute. The USSR collapsed peacefully, after which Russia went through a period of deformation, then reformation, now deformation again. Is reform the next stop? — BC

When pigs fly... Hell, no! None of them will peacefully reform any time soon, to any kind of new configuration in which they would willingly surrender any of their autonomy. World powers don't: they even remake their gods in the image of their own mortal rulers.

I have seen no proof presented that breaking up large nation-states is an unalloyed good or even slightly helpful. — BC

No human endeavour is unalloyed, even less any that involve large numbers of people. China may be unified in its suppression of minorities and its expansionist ambition - I have no inside information on that. Russia doesn't seem to be at peace within itself, nor all of the same mind as to its 'foreign policy'. And the United States is most definitely not united atm.