By Nathan Barton
Ari Armstrong, of Colorado Freedom Report, offers up a thought-provoking column concerning “Add More States…” this week.
He suggests that a fundamental problem with the modern Fifty States is just that: we are only fifty and not seventy or even more.
No, he is not suggesting annexing Canada, Mexico, or even Great Britain. Rather, he is suggesting that the mega-states (particularly California, Texas, New York, Florida, and even Illinois and Pennsylvania) with huge populations, should divide themselves into multiple states. More than just the three now proposed for California. He suggests a state in the American union should be no more than ten million souls strong. Thereby providing better government at home and in DC.
This is, of course (and perhaps oxymoronically), a monarchist notion – creating MORE state governments and MORE senators. It does in part accept the notion that government that is closer to the people is better, and Ari does (with well-thought-out reservations) point out that his proposal would be “more democratic” and improve both Congress and the electoral college in several ways.
As well as pointing out the disadvantages: a California split into five parts would very likely give at least six (if not eight) more Barbara Boxers and other Tranzi (liberal) types. (And although he does not mention it, there is always the thorny problem of (if you split Texas into five states) who gets the Alamo. Splitting the six “mega” American states into an average of four would add eighteen more senators. (A prospect which is, to me, totally disgusting – MORE senators?) Even if we don’t increase the number of Representatives. And some of those divisions might be pretty artificial (like that line between Colorado and Kansas, splitting families and farms and even towns).
But from a monarchist point of view, his invention has some merits.
From my own self-governing, anarchist point of view: not so many. Yeah, I could see the Texas Panhandle getting out from under Austin’s thumb. And even more, the people of
“true” Northern California liberated from the sickening nanny state of the Bay Area and LaLa Land. And the Florida Panhandle no longer dictated to by the votes and reps of Miami or Tampa Bay. But more government, more lordlings lording it over us, more bureaucrats booting us? No, no, NO thank you.
And being under a magic number – whether ten million or six million – does NOT mean you have better government. As Ari’s own Colorado demonstrates daily. (Ditto for Rhode Island or, say, Maine.)
Because it does NOT address the basic issues of government. Mandatory human government is inherently evil. First, because it allows people to control other people (as well as being rebellion against the Creator). Second, it is built on the premise that something immoral (wrong!) for an individual person or small group, is right and good if a majority supports (allows) it. (Taxes versus theft, for instance.) Third, it is inefficient, corrupt, and built on lies. Having Sixty-Eight instead of Fifty States eliminates none of these problems.
Ari’s idea would make more sense if we were still a federation, as Switzerland is – or even as Canada is. If we truly had (as we once did) a federal government of limited and restricted powers. It would work – for a while. But as the people of Alberta and Newfoundland can tell you, the FedGov always grows – in power, in wealth, and in greed for both.
And he is correct, that if this goes on, we in flyover country will find ourselves in far, far worse shape than we possibly can imagine.
Enough is enough. Ultimately, government – federal, state, local – must fall. If we want liberty for our descendants.
increasing the number of states and senators will only produce a larger class of kleptocrats with continued leadership by sociopaths and psychopaths. this is not an ‘answer’ to what ails this nation. a corrupt system can only produce corruption and THAT – the system itself – is the problem.
the only way freedom will be seen is when the federal leviathan is brought to heel. two things come to mind under this ideation:
-it is obvious that the leviathan will only ever act to protect itself. expecting leviathan to ‘police itself’ is a notion that is as psychopathic as expecting a corrupt system to produce a non corrupt outcome and
-it seems the supine population has accepted corruption as its way of leadership and way of life.
who, then, opposes the sociopaths and psychopaths in charge? the answer is obvious given what we have become: NOT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CITIZENS.
since leviathan will not police itself and its ‘citizens’ seem to accept the ‘in your face’ corruption seen everywhere, what will become of this nation? it will fall, secondary to bankruptcy, as have all previous empires.
what then? will ‘freedom’ be such an outdated, useless notion that it will be traded for another tyranny? what happens to a totally corrupt, entitled, incapable, inadequate, inept and, finally, incomplete people when their ‘benefactor’ and ‘guardian’ are no longer present?
Beau, you are making some excellent points.
You are correct that the system itself is the problem – not just the pathetic monster that the federal union has become, but ALL coercive and mandatory government.
I think that it does not matter how many “citizens” oppose the sociopaths and psychopaths and kleptocrats as long as any “citizens” accept the basic (and evil) principles of human government: that someone else (even a majority) has control over each of us. In ANY part of life.
But are we not being pessimistic if we think that the people will simply be the prey of yet another tyranny. (Or way too optimistic.)
The people you describe so well have a different fate than more tyranny. Put simply, they will “live free or die.” Without their “guardians and benefactors,” most of these parasites will probably simply die. Those who learn NOT to be parasites (and NOT to find either victims or benefactors) will, of necessity, join lovers of liberty. Reluctantly, of course, and with great potential for recidivism, but they will at least try to survive. Like rattlesnakes and scorpions and flies. Or as Paul warns us, “as wolves in sheep’s clothing” always seeking to subvert their fellows back into the evils of government.