>

We went through a literal civil war of this issue dude. If we got through that why do you think we would fall apart over abortion rights or whatever?
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. >


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. >

We should fracture the two-party polarization into a many-party system. >

How? The respective extremes of each side are entirely cemented in their places >

Ideally, implement a parliamentary system where representatives are apportioned based on how many votes their party received, allowing for many viable political parties. This is how most democracies function.
It would require a Constitutional amendment, but then again, so would dissolving the federal government. >

There's lots of practical considerations to be made that would prevent this from happening in the near future.
Big Bussiness: For one, both parties tend to capitulate to wealthy special interests, and those interests would hate a change as radical as dissolving the federal government. So many issues would arise. For one thing, the New York Stock Exchange would collapse overnight. Most companies are reliant on universal application of federal law and financial claims in order to operate seamlessly across the US. Some blue states like California would likely take radical anti-capitalist steps that is currently prohibited under the contracts clause of the federal constitution (like expropriating capital). The biggest problem: every state could set different trade agreements that would seriously fuck with the bussiness model of multinational corporations.
Legally Impossible & Unpopular: It would also take 3/4 of the states to agree to dissolve the federal government, or a civil war, and I don't think there's popular support for either. Most people don't want the states to succeed out of many considerations: they don't want vulnerable populations oppressed in the states, they know family members who still live in states of an opposite political affiliation, or, they simply want the freedom to move about the country without worrying about different laws or border checkpoints
We *seem* really polarized right now, but in reality, every state is just a different shade of purple. Even in Kentucky (deep red state) voters elected a Democratic governor after the R attacked teachers unions. Even in Kansas (deep red state), the citizens voted for a ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights into the state Constitution after the fall of Roe. A state might be majority red or blue, but they don't have enough radical devotees to support a full succession. 
Simply put, such a radical move would require a ton of political momentum, for which there simply isn't a significant enough base with significant enough power. >


Just without the federal government. I truly do not think a country with such ethnic and socioeconomic diversity can ever be made to actually accomplish any net positives.

What does ethnicity have to do with it? >


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

Your belief is that the United States has never accomplished anything positive?
Apollo Program, the internet, Computers...............
All accomplished with ethnic and socioeconomic diversity