Can we split peacefully?

[Jason Fry]

The US seems to be fairly divided on dozens of issues. Regardless of who wins in November, 47% of people are going to be ******. Some of you guys know I'm a proponent of Texas independence. I'd like to take a swing at a bigger question than that. Assuming some sort of separation is inevitable, whether it's sooner or later, is it possible to break up peacefully?

I've written a book arguing that a "national divorce," a negotiated proactive split, is the path to peace. If we don't split on purpose, with intentional commitment to nonviolence, then we'll end up splitting anyway. I think it'll end up more "Irish Republican Army" style terrorist warfare or maybe Syria style warring factions, not 1861, but it won't be good.

I talk about a bunch of different angles.... legal, moral, social, tribal, political. I use a bunch of metaphors: "violence is inherent in the system," kangaroos, eagles, teenagers, perspectives on divorce process and outcomes, a riff on left-handedness, and many more.

I cite about 60 sources, from a variety of perspectives. I argue both sides as often as I can. This is intentionally NOT what people would expect out of a secession book.

www.national-divorce.com is the book website. The site is live and functional, and I anticipate books in hand by the end of September, but I'm not really pushing preorders till I have a firm delivery date. Mailing list signup works.

[Jason Fry]

Here's the front cover. It'll be on Amazon soon, and I'll have print copies within about 6 weeks.

[curtintex]

Just bought your book, Jason. Sounds like an interesting read.

[RiverRat1]

Zero chance.

Why?
Because the other side knows they can't do anything without us. It's all about the money.

I always had the same though about splitting the Country right up the middle. Conservatives on one side, liberals on the other. They'd never do that either because they know how screwed they'd be. They'd never admit it though but what other excuse do they really have?

[Jason Fry]

"It's all about the money" becomes irrelevant with a good free trade agreement. Nobody says Luxembourg or Monaco are too small to exist. Ryan McMaken has a great book out on the subject of small countries from an economic perspective.

I also spend a chapter talking about the influence of "Federal" dollars vs. state dollars vs the tax rate of an independent state. Boils down to this: any state who wishes to keep the same services can keep the same Federal+state combined tax rate. Those of us who would like to reduce some of the current Federal spending, like 35T deficits for example, those states could cut programs and therefore cut taxes below the current combined rate. I acknowledge that any newly independent state would have to raise taxes beyond their current level, but the math suggests that our overall tax burden would go down if we cut out the federal taxes and increased the state taxes.

[rolylane6]

Zero chance.

Why?
Because the other side knows they can't do anything without us. It's all about the money.

I always had the same though about splitting the Country right up the middle. Conservatives on one side, liberals on the other. They'd never do that either because they know how screwed they'd be. They'd never admit it though but what other excuse do they really have?

I agree with this. One half doesn't have a way to fund or support their agenda without the other half. We all know which half is which.

[SmTx]

Diplomacy only works because one side acknowledges the other side’s stick is bigger or the equal loss on both sides isn’t worth it.

It’s worth keeping the US united so no peaceful split. Overwhelming violence is the only possible way to a successful split and not a quelled uprising.

[RiverRat1]

"It's all about the money" becomes irrelevant with a good free trade agreement. Nobody says Luxembourg or Monaco are too small to exist. Ryan McMaken has a great book out on the subject of small countries from an economic perspective.

I also spend a chapter talking about the influence of "Federal" dollars vs. state dollars vs the tax rate of an independent state. Boils down to this: any state who wishes to keep the same services can keep the same Federal+state combined tax rate. Those of us who would like to reduce some of the current Federal spending, like 35T deficits for example, those states could cut programs and therefore cut taxes below the current combined rate. I acknowledge that any newly independent state would have to raise taxes beyond their current level, but the math suggests that our overall tax burden would go down if we cut out the federal taxes and increased the state taxes.

For the side that would not be capitalistic or productive it would be all about the money.

Texas would do just fine so I agree with you 99%.

[Jason Fry]

The whole reason to write this book is to prevent a civil war. I have two kids in the military. When the split happens, some places won't be able to resist the temptation to use violence to "maintain unity." That's the same argument that the wife beater uses.... "If you leave, I'll kill you."

Texas is in a better position than many places. We'll still have plenty to work out, as Austin/Houston/DFW are very different from the rest of the state.

[WItoTX]

Interesting, are you going to do an audiobook? I would love to listen, just don't have the time at the moment to sit down and digest something like this. I doubt I agree, but would love to hear how a split could be done.

[Pineywoods]

Looks like a great read.

[Jason Fry]

Interesting, are you going to do an audiobook? I would love to listen, just don't have the time at the moment to sit down and digest something like this. I doubt I agree, but would love to hear how a split could be done.

Short answer is "yes." Real answer is "it's complicated." We're going to print this week, and kindle and Amazon will get uploaded also, but that's not instantaneous. The guidance I've been given is to read your audio book from an actual printed copy, so that everything matches. Recording and producing the audio will take me 40-50 studio hours plus some production costs and time. Maybe I can get the audio done by the election, but more likely by Thanksgiving, and that's if it all goes smoothly.

[Artos]

I think it's a neat concept, but don't see any chance of it happening...you got one side that wants to be left alone & live a life the founding fathers envisioned w/ independence, liberty & limited govt.

The other side is essentially the opposite / communism & won't stand for it.

It would be interesting to look into the crystal ball & see where we would be today if Tejas never joined & stayed independent.

[doright]

I haven't read the book so you may have an answer in there. What becomes of the national debt when we split? Which side is responsible for that? Most, if not all, of the major cities are liberal. I don't see them going peaceable. Don't forget other countries that hate us already. They would love to see us weakened even more. It would be a great opportunity for them to move in. As great as the thought is I don't see a good outcome. If we were to split, I still would not trust whoever was picked to lead the new country. All they want is money and power.

[BrianL]

Does it address:

National Debt
Military
Social Security
Medicare