Thoughts Aloud

Archive for January 23rd, 2009

Troy has an interesting piece entitled, “I’m Sorry, So Sorry…,” in which he revisits the idea of breaking America into separate autonomous regions. Only, now he is suggesting it be done by consensus with those advocating different social systems free to choose to live where their preference prevails:

My solution? Let every group have what it wants by dividing the country into several autonomous regions, each free to choose the type of governmental/economic/social system it prefers. For sure, this would cause some dislocations since many would find themselves in a region that does not conform to their preferences. No problem. Leave them free to either:

• Willingly abide by the decisions of the majority in that region, or,
• Remove themselves to a different region, more suited to their tastes.

After all, we are a very mobile people.

Such freedom of choice and movement should remain open to any and all for a predetermined period after the division. However, after this period of choice has expired, each region should then be free to establish its own processes and rules for immigration. I suggest this last restriction in the absolute belief that those who choose poorly would soon want to flee to the protection of others who chose more wisely.

Sorry but when one chooses a system, one must choose ALL of that system. After all, would not any and every system be great if we could only choose its best attributes and be immune to its failings?

Is this not a form of the very thinking that has gotten the USA to the state of collapse?

This sounds great to me; but I see a few hidden flaws. Let’s say we break it into three pieces:

1. A socialist system, where the Politically Correct activists regulate moral behavior.
2. A corporatist system, where the Piously Correct activists regulate moral behavior.
3. A laissez faire capitalist system, where individual moral behavior is unregulated.

It would seem to me that few businesses that actually produced wealth would wish to stay in the socialist paradise (1), and would move to (3) where I would be. This would devastate the welfare state, for lack of a source of funds to redistribute to all the lazy whiners demanding their benefits. This might cause them to wish to invade (3) to re-enslave some producers.

Then, both (1) and (2) would require heavy enforcement mechanisms to force their citizens to “do the right thing.” This would drive all the dopers and criminals into (3) where they wouldn’t have enforcers breathing down their necks every moment of the day. This would force the cooperative citizens of (3) to hire more cops than they would otherwise need, and penal facilities that they probably had not planned for.

I am willing to kick the idea around; but it seems fraught with a lot of unintended consequences, and I suspect it would evolve into civil war eventually anyway. ◄Dave►