Here's a few assumptions:
- people basically want good government that reflects their views. To libertarians, this might mean a small, unobtrusive government, low taxes, gun rights etc. To leftists, this might mean a proactive government that regulates the market for abuses, provides universal healthcare etc.
- governments are very different beasts depending on the size and homogeneity of the population - China's central government is nothing like Iceland's.
- Governments of smaller populations are inherently more accountable, legitimate and represent the views of the population better
- Governments of homogeneous populations would better reflect the population's views, since there is more likely to be some kind of broad consensus.
So if you agree with those, the question then is: would you give up the US/Canada if it meant increased liberties? The idea is that splitting up the US/Canada into a bunch of large countries that group people with shared views and history and produce local governments that reflect the views of the population much better.
Here is one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America
Another possibility is something like:
1. New England + Maritimes
2. Great Lakes region (Washington, new york, toronto, and chicago)
3. Midwest + Canadian prairies
4. The South
5. Texas and the south west
6. Pacific coast (California to BC)
7. Quebec
8. The North (Alaska, NWT, northern parts of Canadian prairie provinces)
Assume each of these combines into a septate country (and currency), but that multiple citizenships are allowed, borders are minimal (like the US-Canada border) and there is free trade between all the countries.
If all this meant you could live in a country that reflects your views, would you be up for it? For example west-coast leftists would get universal healthcare, strong environmental laws, etc while Texas libertarians would get all the guns they want, a tiny government and very low taxes, etc.
- people basically want good government that reflects their views. To libertarians, this might mean a small, unobtrusive government, low taxes, gun rights etc. To leftists, this might mean a proactive government that regulates the market for abuses, provides universal healthcare etc.
- governments are very different beasts depending on the size and homogeneity of the population - China's central government is nothing like Iceland's.
- Governments of smaller populations are inherently more accountable, legitimate and represent the views of the population better
- Governments of homogeneous populations would better reflect the population's views, since there is more likely to be some kind of broad consensus.
So if you agree with those, the question then is: would you give up the US/Canada if it meant increased liberties? The idea is that splitting up the US/Canada into a bunch of large countries that group people with shared views and history and produce local governments that reflect the views of the population much better.
Here is one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America
Another possibility is something like:
1. New England + Maritimes
2. Great Lakes region (Washington, new york, toronto, and chicago)
3. Midwest + Canadian prairies
4. The South
5. Texas and the south west
6. Pacific coast (California to BC)
7. Quebec
8. The North (Alaska, NWT, northern parts of Canadian prairie provinces)
Assume each of these combines into a septate country (and currency), but that multiple citizenships are allowed, borders are minimal (like the US-Canada border) and there is free trade between all the countries.
If all this meant you could live in a country that reflects your views, would you be up for it? For example west-coast leftists would get universal healthcare, strong environmental laws, etc while Texas libertarians would get all the guns they want, a tiny government and very low taxes, etc.