What is the optimal size for a country, if it has complete states’ rights?
Secessionists have explained that citizens will have better representation in a smaller country, and that the unique policy preferences of their state could be fully expressed if federal interference were eliminated. Their state will be able to preserve liberty and traditional values and resist the cultural Marxism and financial bankruptcy of the Left.
Many small nations are successful around the world, but to some degree they rely on, and are therefore liable to pressure from, other countries. Without the USA as an ally, they might not be so successful after the USA breaks up. And they might not have as much policy freedom.
When we try to convince Texans that they are better off seceding, sometimes they are skeptical about living in a small country. The possibility of federating with other states can make them more willing to be pro-secession.
Why Red States Would Be Wise to Have a Federation Together:
It would be a loose federation anyway:
Texas won’t have to worry about being drained financially in a new federation because the voters would be so conservative that the judges nominated would be conservative- so the judges wouldn’t allow the red state federal government to spend on things not authorized by the constitution. The only costs that would be shared would be on defense, etc. There would be little or no income tax. The only reason poor states give less to the feds than Texas does is because of the income tax.
Culturally, Texas would find little interference because it would have all the states’ rights that a properly-interpreted Constitution grants it. Or Texas could require a looser kind of confederation than the Constitution.
The Constitution, when interpreted by originalist judges, allows very little power to the federal government.
The red states might eliminate some of the Constitution’s amendments, and make it more clear how the Constitution must be interpreted.
Possibly as a pre-condition to joining a federation, Texas could requre an amendment to the constitution to allow citizenship and immigration to be handled at the state level, meaning Texas could require a visa if a Kansan wanted to permanently immigrate to Texas. Another option is Texas could allow immigration from red states but not grant the right to vote in Texan elections. In other words, Kansans would be allowed to move in without permission, but Texan citizenship would be by heredity only.
It is a stronger bargaining position when dividing US assets and debts:
If after Texas votes to secede, it joins a movement to split the country in half, the assets would be divided equally, not just the debts! If we split the country, each state gets its share of the federal land and buildings, and ships, planes, and other military assets of the country. If Texas leaves alone, it won’t have much leverage during negotiations, except the threat to not accept the national debt.
from war long-term, and more freedom from foreign pressure:
I like the idea of a North America that has a few big countries rather than 55 little countries because it makes the continent more peaceful. Statistically, without federations, the sheer number of small states would seem to increase the likelihood of some conflicts.
It’s likely that if the USA breaks up, the blue states (the remainder of the USA) would be one country of about 158 million people, because progressives are all about centralization because they want their laws to apply to as many people as possible. They might form a North American Union with Canada and Mexico, and maybe other countries. There are about 166 million people in the areas that we predict will form a red-state country. If the red states end up as lots of little countries, they are vulnerable. Sure, they can make a defense agreement. But countries can be pressured to end their defense agreements by economic pressure from the blue states.
Texas will need a strong navy to avoid the possibility of its shipping being bottled up in the Gulf of Mexico. If not, Texas will always be vulnerable to being pressured by the threat of blockade by the blue states. If all the red states federate, they can share the expense and have the biggest navy in the world. And Texas will have a land route through the red-state federation to the Atlantic and to Canada.
The Yankees have pushed around many, many countries by threatening embargoes and trade sanctions. It’s the Yankees’ favorite way to try to force other nations to change their policies. It was enough to make South Africa give up apartheid.
There’s no doubt that Texans can deter any potential invader. But with economic power, the blue-state country can intimidate the Texas legislature on policy issues if Texas isn’t a part of a bigger group. A federation of red states would be 11% of the world’s economy and 2% of the world’s population. Only China and the blue-state country would have larger economies. Of course, after secession, we believe that the blue-state country’s economy would soon shrink to the point that its per-capita GDP would be more in line with liberal countries such as Canada and the UK.
If the red states join a federation, it will be easier for them to take responsibility for ensuring freedom of passage on sea lanes around the world. It makes it easier to protect our sovereignty from China, Iran, and other threats. It would be easier, per capita, to be a strong ally for Israel.
When the USA decided to design the F-35 fighter airplane, it created a coalition of more than a dozen countries to fund the design and development program. This was not absolutely necessary, but it helped reduce the cost to the American taxpayer. The bigger the country, the cheaper (per capita) it is to either develop a weapon in-house, or to at least be the anchor country for such a coalition. Buying weapons from Russia or Asia can make a country dependent on them for spare parts. And the European nations that make major weapon systems are not aligned politically with the red states.
Free trade may go out of style again. A benefit of a large country is that there is automatic free trade within the country. Admittedly, that could be accomplished with free trade treaties between states. In addition, a large country has more clout when negotiating trade deals with foreign countries.
There are several industries that wouldn’t want to locate in a country the size of Texas if they could locate in a country the size of the blue states, where they can draw from a much bigger pool of talent. Here are some industries that draw from a nationwide pool of talent: media, aerospace, electronics, medical devices, etc. Industry in Texas might move out of Texas if Texas stops allowing them to hire people from out of state. I’m suggesting that allowing them to hire from red states would keep them happy and keep them in Texas.
Having a big country makes it easier to stay employed if you have the kind of niche job that requires you to occasionally take an out-of-state job. There are a lot of people that have moved for work. 30% of Americans do not live in their birth state. Mobility of workforce is attractive to companies that want to draw talent from a large pool (a pool of a large country rather than a small country).
Keystone XL pipeline:
Letting red states join Texas ensures that the pipelines from Alberta would continue flowing to Texas refineries. If Texas secede without the red states, the Republicans won’t win a USA election again, so the USA will cancel the pipeline project. I know Texas doesn’t need oil from Alberta, but that pipeline is a financial benefit to Texas refineries. Canada pays us to transport their oil too. Obama cancelled the project, but Trump reinstated it. It became a political issue.
a non-Hollywood non-NYC media:
Media is very important because it influences our culture which influences how we vote. We want to be big enough to have our own media rather than having our kids watching Hollywood movies and NYC sit-coms. Canada has this problem, as its population is only 11% of the population of the USA. Texas is 8.6% of the USA. Certainly any country of any size has its own news media though.
A big country makes it more likely that our children will get their college education from within our country rather than going to a blue state to be indoctrinated with Marxism. This is an issue for red states because don’t have many highly-ranked universities, although you can complain about the rankings. The red states are likely to use state power to uproot Marxism from their publicly-funded universities.
Southerners are 39% of the USA, but they would be 59% of the red-state federation.
The largest metro areas in the red-state country would be: 1 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2 Houston 3 Atlanta 4 Phoenix (unless central and southern Phoenix join the blue-state country) 5 Tampa 6 Pittsburgh 7 Charlotte 8 San Antonio 9 Orlando.
When conservative professionals flee the blue states, they will cause these metro areas to grow and become the envy of the world. They are all Southern except Pittsburgh, and three are Texan. Our children will no longer go to Los Angeles and NYC to follow their careers, but to our own red-state cities. The only megacities on this list are Southern: DFW, Houston, and Atlanta.
On the other hand, we’re not saying Texas independence is a bad idea. Texas is big enough to be a very successful country if it chooses not to join any federation.
If Texas secedes before it becomes a blue state, millions of conservatives will move in (before immigration is stopped) and millions of leftists and welfare-dependents will move out. With a population of 28 million, it will have more people than the average country in the world (23 million) and far more than the median country (9 million). It has an economy in the top 12 in the world (out of 200 countries in the world).