I Shrugged wrote:
Let's be clear. In your terms Moda, the federal government is the parasite. It doesn't have anything it hasn't taken from the states. States with a lot of federal employees, military, or social security recipients are going to get a lot of federal money. Beyond that it's all interest group politics as to how its spent. Presumably money paid to farmers for example, benefits food consumers in other states.
I can't prove it but I suspect the red states would be more easily self-sufficient than the blue ones.
I,
Not to hijack a thread (mods can move it if they wish), but if we're looking at this from a "functional" point of view, putting aside the morality around individualism and such, while many of the original states could be considered "sovereign states first, and US states second," that isn't really true of the western states. The march west wasn't just a bunch of rugged individualists moving out to form a state that reflected their priorities. It was largely purchased and encouraged by the federal government. States like "Idaho" were more manifestations of the federal government than some sort of grass-roots benefit.
On a purely moral basis, though, using individual sovereignty as the core, there is no such thing as "states rights." Nothing can be "taken from the states." It's a big myth, IMO, propped up by wannabe libertarians who want to sit on a moral pedestal of individualism when it suits them, but they're good little statists just like the rest of us when it comes to trying to argue for secession and what the "states rights" should be, all based on how THEY would like force applied... I know that sounds more than a bit arrogant and harsh. But once you unwind the logic, it's pretty accurate, IMO.
Oh, and as for which states would survive the best. Currently, all states have their own individual economies and state governments, selling goods (for payment) both within and outside the state. Texas has lots of oil!! But I pay for gas when I fill up the tank in MN. I don't get it for free. Where the feds get involved is (mainly) regulation, spending, and taxation. If we can set aside the effect of regs for a second (as these are a bit tougher to nail down the winners/losers), we can very easily look at net federal tax revenue from/to each state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_ta ... g_by_state
If you go down to the table and sort the states by net tax revenue, or net tax revenue per GSP, you'll see that there is a pretty clear trend of "blue states" paying most of the money into the federal government, and "red states" getting the most back from it.
If you cut off the net effect of the federal government, many red states would take an absolutely massive economic hit.
Personally, I'd love to see a Secession Movement within my state of MN just to make this fact more public
.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
