>


that system failed. It fell apart. It was intentionally replaced with a system that has a stronger federal government that has lasted hundreds of years.

The problems of the articles of confederation were that they created systems that were too decentralized. The system set up by the Constitution did not foresee the immense amount of federal creep that has happened via Congress abusing the interstate commerce clause.
Can you point to any time in history where all fifty states have truly been united on all issues? Maybe the war, but after that we go straight into the 50/60/70/80s etc, all of which represent huge social division. >

Not even the war. There were plenty of americans sucking hitler's dick. >

I don't really get what problem this solves. You want to get rid of the federal government, but you still want everyone to "pitch in for mutual defense"... which sounds a lot like federal taxes? So what are we actually getting rid of? Popular programs that nobody wants to lose like Medicare/Social Security? Who actually wants this? When you get to the details, it feels like this is just a conservative pro military / small government wet dream.
Furthermore, there's other important government functions that are going to be hard to split up, mainly control of the treasury and how money gets printed and added to circulation. And if you want to throw all that out, now it's just sounding super libertarian.
So I guess I just don't get what you're imagining here that's not just a clearly right wing vision for what the government should look like. >

You don't solve the problem by splitting the United States up into 50 separate entities - you just turn one problem into 50.
The states are just as divided on these issues individually as we are collective as a country.  My own home state of Texas - commonly viewed as the beating Red heart of Conservative country - was 52/46 Republican/Democrat in the last Presidential election.  We are just as divided on these issues as the country as a whole. >

You just agreed with me I think? My point I guess was places in Europe etc have cultural values etc to hold them together at the worst of times while we really don't. Pretty much a German farmer in the woods and a German xitizen of Berlin are a lot more like minded than a redneck from the rural areas of a state and a black urban youth, for example >

I don't agree.  I don't see why the states would split apart from the Union in any foreseeable future, because such a split doesn't actually resolve anything.  Moreover, you'd never get the level of consensus you'd need within any given state to agree to such a split. >

The United States of America started as the articles of confederation because they felt that a weak federal government and strong state governments would be better.
that system failed.  It fell apart.  It was intentionally replaced with a system that has a stronger federal government that has lasted hundreds of years.

I truly do not think a country with such ethnic and socioeconomic diversity can ever be made to actually accomplish any net positives

what year do you think the US became too ethnically and socioeconomically diverse to actually accomplish any net positives?
I think people in the US have accomplished a lot and continue to accomplish a lot, and I don't think the ethnic diversity of our country is an obstacle to that.