The Instigator
ramramgeorge
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cipeylsrs
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

America should become multiple (6-9) nations operating under an EU-style central government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 62018
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

ramramgeorge

Pro

I would like to start off this debate with a couple of details that I could not fit in the title:

- Myself and my opponent are going to debate this topic through the perspective of a couple of politicians who are the ones that will decide the fate of America after a recent toppling of the federal government (peaceful toppling)- yes you are going to have to role play in this one my opponent.

- I don't care if you swear in your debate. However, don't insult me or result to rude behavior (obviously).

- Your argument should AT LEAST be a couple of sentences long.

On to my argument!
=====================================================================

Many people believe that secession is the "big boggy man" of our world that is ever struggling to unite. I met many fellow liberals and moderates who have strongly resented the idea as they believe it direly contradicts their beliefs of a unified world focused on progress and rationalism.

However, my proposal does anything but contradict their beliefs. For it truly balances the benefits of secession with the benefits of a federation (the united states is more of a federation nowadays). To give you a clear picture of what I am talking about, I am going to state my proposal to breakup the united states (followed by the benefits and common myths people associate with such a "taboo" idea).

1. Each nation is to compose of more than one individual state, and the united states is to be divided in a fashion that ensures each nation has no more than 100 million people and no less than 20 million people to care for.

2. Each nation is given the power to have their own military (though that is negotiable) and conduct their own trade agreements (with nations/unions located outside of modern-day America), but cannot conduct wars without consent from the rest of the nations in the "American EU". Each nation cannot ally with another foreign nation (by "foreign nation" I mean any other nation outside of modern-day America).

3. Each nation can enact its own policies/laws and tax code on its people (but only its people).

4. There is to be a central government in Washington consisting of 5-10 ELECTED representatives from each nation.

5. The central government in Washington is to collect 3% of revenues from each nation's federal government to pay for its own SMALL (no more than 300,000- 900,000 men) military that is to act as a "peacekeeping force", along with other expenses including aid to nations facing natural disasters, aid to nations facing large amounts of poverty, along with expenses including upkeep costs for government departments/buildings, and the enforcement of union-wide policies (see #6 for details about union wide policies).

6. The central government in Washington CAN implement its own policies that either apply to the union (such policies require consent from the entire union). Or implement policies that apply to specific nations to resolve economic and/or political disputes (only if the nations themselves are evidently refusing to come to an agreement).

7. The central government in Washington can only negotiate trade agreements/other foreign policies with consent from at least 8/8 (excluding Washington- see #8 for details about Washington DC) nations. However, whatever foreign policy the government in Washington decides to enact is to apply to the entire union as a whole (i.e. if the government in Washington wants to impose sanctions on Russia- and all nations agree to such a thing- then each nation must apply sanctions on Russia- pretty obvious).

8. Washington DC itself is to be home to the congress of the union (much like before). However, Washington is to become its own city-state with its own government responsible for the affairs of its own citizens.

9. The nations are to all use a common currency (minted in Washington), have open borders, 100% free trade, and their citizen's are to all share a common citizenship and passport (i.e. citizens living in Cascadia (the northwest) would not have a "Cascadian" passport/citizenship but an "American" passport/citizenship. Either immigration departments of each nation or Washington-funded immigration centers would be the ones to hand out passports/citizenship/visas.

10. The constitution for this "American Union" can be edited (and should be) every 20 years in order to keep it up-to-date with current events.

BENEFITS:

- Smaller governments in charge of less people results in more efficient administration and more effective implementation of social policies such as health care an welfare.

- Each region in the United States differs socially, culturally, and economically from another, having individual governments govern each region results in more specialized governments catering to more specific needs.

- Goods, services, and citizens can still move as freely as they please across the union as they could before. Their tax dollars just go to a different government.

- Common currency across a large and powerful economy- such as the one in America- helps attract large investment towards that currency and helps strengthen it.

- Unlike the articles of confederation, this proposal gives the central government power to deal with things like Shays' Rebellion, natural disasters, poverty, and to deal with larger foreign powers that the individual nations may not be able to deal with on their own. It also helps prevent individual nations from forgetting about others.

- Having multiple smaller governments helps spread political power of being in charge of 315 million people across the nation rather than concentrating it into one central government of a couple hundred people.

- small tows (which are often ignored) and individual citizens receive a greater voice in a smaller government.

MYTHS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS:

- Divided we fall: The permanent alliance these nations will all be apart of and the fact that Washington can negotiate on behalf of the union with larger foreign powers eliminates such a thing. The fact that Washington has a military itself and the power to implement policies to resolve disputes between nations also helps eliminate this problem.

- Articles of Confederation did not work:

The articles themselves suffered from three main weaknesses:

- Washington had no/little authority to resolve disputes

- Washington had no military

- The "nations" themselves were states, and thus were small and suffering from a lack of resources

If you read my proposal again, you will find that these bugs have been fixed.

I await my opponent's argument.
cipeylsrs

Con

Lol, 69.
Debate Round No. 1
ramramgeorge

Pro

ramramgeorge forfeited this round.
cipeylsrs

Con

cipeylsrs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ramramgeorge

Pro

ramramgeorge forfeited this round.
cipeylsrs

Con

cipeylsrs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ramramgeorge 2 years ago
ramramgeorge
Yeah sorry dancampbell that this troll had to get in the way of this debate. I thought this website boasted a more intelligent user base.

Meh. Please message me any time your available in order to debate with me again.

Cheers.
Posted by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
Your opponent's account has been closed. He will not be able to complete this debate.
Posted by dancampbell869 2 years ago
dancampbell869
My apologies, I am honestly very interested in this debate, but currently have too much homework to challenge you to it again right now. Sometime in the future I would definitely take this up again. Thanks
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, I can see that you have some solid basis for choosing the number, it's just a question of how well that basis can be supported and whether or not you can establish a solid brink scenario for going above or below that number. Since the number itself is at least somewhat arbitrary, it's open to criticism.
Posted by ramramgeorge 2 years ago
ramramgeorge
To be honest I chose nine out of my own obervations and information collected.

However, that does not mean I am not open to better ideas. However, nine just seems... logical (see my previous comment for explanation)
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I don't know if there is a good number. I would change the advocacy to something a little more nebulous. Rather than discussing a system where a defined number of nations are created, you could simply discuss a system whereby separate nations are created, advocate for a certain number perhaps, but leave it more open. You don't need to have every detail neatly set to create an advocacy.
Posted by ramramgeorge 2 years ago
ramramgeorge
I forgot Cascadia. Therefore, it would actually make 10 nations with DC included (9 without).
Posted by ramramgeorge 2 years ago
ramramgeorge
The reason why I chose 9 "nations" is because 51 nations would cause an extraordinary amount of politics and many of them have small populations and GDP. Therefore, they would suffer a lack of resources as a whole. In fact, according to http://www.worldatlas.com... only 23% of states in the US have a population over 8 million and only 43% of states (as of 2012 and according to http://www.bea.gov...) have below $42,000 GDP per capita.

This means that you will have half of the states being unable to provide decent services to their people because their GDP and tax revenues just wont cut it. My goal with this proposal was to balance the benefits of local government and federation while trying to avoid this proposal from turning into an articles of confederation.

However, shoving all 51 states under one federation will result in inequality and poor representation among the states. Therefore, I made this compromise (my proposal) that will ensure the states themselves have a larger pool of resources to draw from while getting a larger voice from being part of a smaller nation.

BTW my idea to have nine nations is based off of the nine "regions" (social, economic and cultural) already in the US. New England, California, Texas&Sonora, Mid Atlantic, Mid West, Front Range, Dixon, and the Plains (it actually makes 8, but since DC- in my proposal- is its own nation/state it makes 9 with DC included).

What do you think is a good number whilteflame?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, I'm in agreement with Fuzzy here - that's a big issue. You've picked an arbitrary set of numbers to determine the appropriate sizes of each "nation," and chosen an arbitrary range of total nations, without any justification. All of your impacts come from smaller governments controlling more local areas. The easiest response to this is just to take all of your changes a little further and increase the number of nations created. Why bother with delineating by states when so many states usage distinct cultures? It seems simple to capture and supercharge your impacts.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Why 6-9? Why not 2, or 50, or 3,009?
No votes have been placed for this debate.