• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which State Would Make the Best Country?

Which State Would Make the Best Country?


  • Total voters
    61
Quite the powerful words :
United we stand; divided we fall.
Maybe our American Empire will fall , as many seem to desire.

It eventually will fall regardless. Our current system and lifestyle is unsustainable.
 
Probably Texas.
 
I would like it if Texas became a separate nation, and took Oklahoma and Louisiana with us. Oklahoma has some of the nicest people in the country, and the southern Louisiana men can build or do virtually anything they set their minds to. They are very resourceful, and we (in Texas)have the resources needed.
 
I would like it if Texas became a separate nation, and took Oklahoma and Louisiana with us. Oklahoma has some of the nicest people in the country, and the southern Louisiana men can build or do virtually anything they set their minds to. They are very resourceful, and we (in Texas)have the resources needed.

Texas in the olden days:

republic-texas-map-1500.jpg
 
Four states have been former republics. Several have sporadic or persistent secession movements.

Which state, if it left the US, would make the most functional new country?

Before Modern Liberals, Progressives and other Statists corrupted the public's understanding of their own nation, the States were considered to be effectively countries in their own right. Now, they're effectively provinces of the imperial nation at Washington D.C.
 
The only thing is if Texas did leave the rest of the US would be screwed :( I would move in a heartbeat.
 
The only thing is if Texas did leave the rest of the US would be screwed :( I would move in a heartbeat.

Well there goes the neighborhood!

:2razz:
 
Before Modern Liberals, Progressives and other Statists corrupted the public's understanding of their own nation, the States were considered to be effectively countries in their own right. Now, they're effectively provinces of the imperial nation at Washington D.C.

I think the Civil War had a little something to do with that.
 
Oh cool. I didn't see Utah as a choice. It would probably be self sustaining but there is no way the United States would allow them to be independent. Since they are landlocked on all sides they would be completely vulnerable to the actions/inactions of the United States. I voted for Texas because of geography and history. California is also a great choice due to geography, natural resources and climate. Neither of these two states would be vulnerable to the United State's whims. They both border Mexico which would inspire friendly competition for economic allies with the US or Mexico. California is at a strategic military advantage because the majority of it's border is ocean. Alaska and Hawaii also have a military advantage but they are too low on natural resources and too distant from viable economic allies.

California and Texas are almost tied for 1st place. If you ignore the history and the culture of Texas, California would be the number one choice. I voted for Texas but Utah is the more exciting possibility to imagine. I love Mormons but they have bad blood with the United States that goes back to their beginnings. I like this question. It's very fun to consider the possibilities.

vasuderatorrent
 
I think the Civil War had a little something to do with that.

Well, we never had a civil war, that was a misnomer, as I've explained elsewhere. In a civil war, two or more factions are trying to seize control of a single nation.

Second, you are positing that the Constitution has been overruled for a century and a half by the expedient of brute force. (Which may in fact be true, but Leftists usually are averse to admitting the possibility.)
 
Last edited:
You are aware anything west of the "coast range" is the Pacific Ocean.

and San Francisco, and Santa Barbara, and a whole lot more. It would be a pretty narrow state geographically, but a lot of people would live there.
 
That is a very good point, but in order to maintain the standard of living they'd have to adjust to a strictly agriculture based economy. Perhaps it would work, but there would be a lot of adjusting for the people living in the proposed country of Kansas (for example)

Unless a third party intruded, things would proceed more or less normally. The only situation where a breadbasket territory is in danger is if they are invaded. Economically, they can just keep pushing costs on everybody else.

hy would Texas have to shrink it's livestock industry, I'd see that as a great potential export. As far as water though, they have a very long coastline and with the use of distillation they could use ocean water to provide for their drinking needs. Singapore is in the process of doing that now.

Honestly, I think Texas would be a very viable self sustaining nation.

Any territory can survive periods of adjustment, but most of what makes them strong derives from the economic and political pact of the Union.

They have good ranching infrastructure, but their feed doesn't come from Texas, it comes from other states. Similarly, the oil they refine comes from other states and countries. Without the collective economic, political, and military might of the entire Union, Texas has little role to play in international oil diplomacy.

An independent Texas is an arid climate with low wages and too large of population.

California is the nations biggest food exporter, and produces more than it's population needs (agriculture, dairy, livestock, fish, etc.). Like Texas it also has abundant resources (oil, minerals, lumber and water). Beyond that it has a long standing reputation as a hub for the entertainment and technology industries, which generate lots of capital for very small input.

Beyond that California has some of the best deep water harbors in the entire world, excellent for international commerce.

As far as water regulation, with the Sierra-Neveada Mountains, CA generally has enough water to meet it's needs, but what is lacking could easily be overcome by the installation of distillation facilities on the coast.

They've always been short on water and have been historically reliant on imports, the process of which consumes a lot of energy. Future technologies might amend the situation, but even if so, losing the collective might of the entire Union makes things harder for them.

Their climate is well suited to a certain type of farming, but again only commodities. They are still dependent on grain, which is the fundamental building unit of the entire food industry.
 
Last edited:
I say Puerto Rico would make a fine independent country.
 
I say Puerto Rico would make a fine independent country.

It's not a state, but is the only entity we've been discussing that could actually vote to become independent.
Not very likely, but possible.
 
I voted for Hawaii. Not because it's already got experience as such (being so long ago, it wouldn't really be relevant anyway, or because it would satisfy conservatives by ACTUALLY making Barack Obama's birthplace a foreign country, or because I want to get rid of them. (Although the new Hawaii Five-O is far below the original in quality, even with the fabulous Grace Park.)

Rather, it's because it's got four things every independent nation needs:

1. A way to set up its own economy: All that tourism money means they'd be at least as well off as the better-off Caribbean nations. This is something the Quebec separatists didn't get: The federal government in Ottawa would have said, "Oh yeah? You don't want our government? Then you can't use our money. Good luck setting up and saving your economy."

2. A way to set up its own military: The U.S. would probably make a deal to allow Pearl Harbor to still take in U.S. ships & servicemen, but a Hawaiian Army, Navy and Air Force would be possible. This is something the "Republic of Texas" morons have not considered: Less strategically important than Hawaii would be, the U.S. forces would pull out, and the Texans would have to defend their border with Mexico with... with... with what, exactly? The State would be majority-Hispanic in about 5 years, and the conservatives would be out of power.

3. Universal health coverage, like every industrialized nation has. Except, of course, for America as a whole.

4. Good relations with the U.S. Everybody likes Hawaii. Except, maybe, for the birthers.
 
All of the options in the list are dependent on other states and the Federal government. None of them would do well as a stand-alone nation.
 
Vermont! And Bernie will lead the way!!!!
 
I voted for Hawaii. Not because it's already got experience as such (being so long ago, it wouldn't really be relevant anyway, or because it would satisfy conservatives by ACTUALLY making Barack Obama's birthplace a foreign country, or because I want to get rid of them. (Although the new Hawaii Five-O is far below the original in quality, even with the fabulous Grace Park.)

Rather, it's because it's got four things every independent nation needs:

1. A way to set up its own economy: All that tourism money means they'd be at least as well off as the better-off Caribbean nations. This is something the Quebec separatists didn't get: The federal government in Ottawa would have said, "Oh yeah? You don't want our government? Then you can't use our money. Good luck setting up and saving your economy."

2. A way to set up its own military: The U.S. would probably make a deal to allow Pearl Harbor to still take in U.S. ships & servicemen, but a Hawaiian Army, Navy and Air Force would be possible. This is something the "Republic of Texas" morons have not considered: Less strategically important than Hawaii would be, the U.S. forces would pull out, and the Texans would have to defend their border with Mexico with... with... with what, exactly? The State would be majority-Hispanic in about 5 years, and the conservatives would be out of power.

3. Universal health coverage, like every industrialized nation has. Except, of course, for America as a whole.

4. Good relations with the U.S. Everybody likes Hawaii. Except, maybe, for the birthers.

I think Hawaii would be a good choice too. On top of all your other points, there is a cultural difference between native Hawaiians and us Yankee Doodles that persists and still causes friction. I would imagine that instead of needing a military they would simply be protected by us in exchange for keeping our bases.

I think another point California has over Texas is a strong natural border. The eastern border of the state was drawn to pretty much follow the Sierra Nevadas, which would make it easily defendable. Texas has a huge open border with both Mexico and the US that would be difficult to patrol.

Vermont would also make a nice country. I imagine it would be a kind of Switzerland of North America, really progressive and against foreign entanglements. It could cozy up nicely with Quebec and maybe induce it to secede too.

I put Utah up because of its past as the nation of "Deseret" but today I doubt it would be a viable country. It may have a Mormon population that distinguishes it from other states, but they are too American to leave.

Florida is really just up there because I feel sometimes they're just so crazy and problematic to the rest of the country that I wonder what it would be like to let it go. Maybe it would invade Cuba, who knows.
 
I voted for California, as it has the infrastructure and economy to make it as a nation, but I'd be pretty pleased if Texas decided to go it alone.

Mexico would finally get those Mexican-American War reparations, and we'd be rid of the stinking, festering intellectual graveyard that is Texas outside of Austin.
 
Back
Top Bottom