I think the question of historical investment has some relevance here. If Texas wants to secede, fine, but the USA has invested heavily in it over the years...what's the divorce bill? Similar issue with US independence regarding taxation and Britain's capital and military investments.
From the outside, this was one of the most interesting parts of the Brexit negotiations.
Of course, given that the ethics of multi-generational collective debt/guilt/obligation are difficult in general, I don't think this *simplifies* the discussion.
Yeah, I wanted to raise the question of divorce bills too (and perhaps of dowry, if you're wanting to rejoin). I'm a dual citizen, and in order to secede from Russia (i.e. give up my citizenship), I have to demonstrate that I do not owe anything to the Russian state. This is a feature of actual divorces, too. This is (at least in theory) easy for an individual, as there are well-documented obligations (determined entirely by the state, I don't get a negotiating position); it's going to be rather less easy for larger seceding entities.
On the other hand, if we continue with the marital analogy, then US civil war becomes "abusive spouse beats other spouse to forcibly prevent a divorce" and Ukraine invasion becomes "abusive stalker beats victim for not wanting to marry them". They're both behaviors we don't condone in individuals, but I would argue the latter is worse -- and I can imagine (though don't subscribe to) a system of morals where a last-resort intramarital beating is actually defensible on the grounds that, while bad, it's less bad than dissolving a marriage. (This requires marriage to be a bigger deal than I personally think it is.)
I think another way to phrase all this is "there are significant transaction costs to redrawing borders; right now, for most of the world, the last-resort mechanism to impose them is wars; it would be nice to have a less bloody pre-agreed-upon system in place (cf. the EU and Brexit), but for most of the world we don't have one, so wars it is."
I'm thinking of divorce bill less in terms of alimony and more in terms of splitting assets. The federal government currently owns a great deal of real estate in TX: what happens to it? What about the extensive military assets, particularly national guard hardware that has a complicated state/federal relationship? Lots of US companies not based in Texas have offices there -- how will that work, particularly for tax purposes?
Every financial, legal, and physical interconnect is something that requires resolution and agreement.
We have lots of existing divorce law to adjudicate these types of issues. For better or worse, the US has no comparable mechanics for state divorce.
I think the question of historical investment has some relevance here. If Texas wants to secede, fine, but the USA has invested heavily in it over the years...what's the divorce bill? Similar issue with US independence regarding taxation and Britain's capital and military investments.
From the outside, this was one of the most interesting parts of the Brexit negotiations.
Of course, given that the ethics of multi-generational collective debt/guilt/obligation are difficult in general, I don't think this *simplifies* the discussion.
Yeah, I wanted to raise the question of divorce bills too (and perhaps of dowry, if you're wanting to rejoin). I'm a dual citizen, and in order to secede from Russia (i.e. give up my citizenship), I have to demonstrate that I do not owe anything to the Russian state. This is a feature of actual divorces, too. This is (at least in theory) easy for an individual, as there are well-documented obligations (determined entirely by the state, I don't get a negotiating position); it's going to be rather less easy for larger seceding entities.
On the other hand, if we continue with the marital analogy, then US civil war becomes "abusive spouse beats other spouse to forcibly prevent a divorce" and Ukraine invasion becomes "abusive stalker beats victim for not wanting to marry them". They're both behaviors we don't condone in individuals, but I would argue the latter is worse -- and I can imagine (though don't subscribe to) a system of morals where a last-resort intramarital beating is actually defensible on the grounds that, while bad, it's less bad than dissolving a marriage. (This requires marriage to be a bigger deal than I personally think it is.)
I think another way to phrase all this is "there are significant transaction costs to redrawing borders; right now, for most of the world, the last-resort mechanism to impose them is wars; it would be nice to have a less bloody pre-agreed-upon system in place (cf. the EU and Brexit), but for most of the world we don't have one, so wars it is."
What if the opposite was true?
Say Texas net federal taxation was higher than the sum of federal investment.
Would Texas be able to say "We're seceding, now pay us for it"?
It seems somewhat counter-intuitive...
I'm thinking of divorce bill less in terms of alimony and more in terms of splitting assets. The federal government currently owns a great deal of real estate in TX: what happens to it? What about the extensive military assets, particularly national guard hardware that has a complicated state/federal relationship? Lots of US companies not based in Texas have offices there -- how will that work, particularly for tax purposes?
Every financial, legal, and physical interconnect is something that requires resolution and agreement.
We have lots of existing divorce law to adjudicate these types of issues. For better or worse, the US has no comparable mechanics for state divorce.