Free Market Federal Divorce Agreement, why not?

I forget where I first encountered the theoretical proposition of a free market solution to federalism, but the e-mail forward I encountered below runs along those lines.

The idea is intriguing: an amicable separation, giving the left half (literally) of the country free reign to implement and practice whatever “progressive” ideological programs and ideals, while the right half of the country is free to practice their limited government, fiscally conservative ideology, ultimately letting the fruit speak for itself.


American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but we can surely come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You’ll be free to build a military and police force however you choose. We’ll be happy to consult, for a nominal fee, which you’ll surely be able to afford, considering the aforementioned taxes.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them). Also, please take Joy Behar and Whoopi. Since I can’t imagine even you guys wanting Susan and Tim Sarandon, we’ll happily buy them a first class plane ticket to somewhere else. You’re welcome.

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can populate your social welfare programs with the homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal immigrants. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll cling to our guns and our religion and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll continue to be guided by our Judeo-Christian values, while welcoming all who differ to practice freely, just so long as there is no mistake about our religious historical roots. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.

You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

J J. W
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

The hardest part would be the land divide. But again, I don’t see why the prospect of such free political reign would be anathema to anyone.

I would also stipulate a 5 year window for reevaluation at the end of 25 years. During that window, the two sides can discuss and evaluate the fruit of their labors and join forces again. However, based on the results of our quarter century experiment, certain programs and projects will be forever declared ineffective, stupid, and socially harmful. If both sides wish to continue on, just as they are, they are free to do so.

The questions to you, dear reader, are whether this is a fair and just division of assets? Why would the left support such a move, or why not? Would the right support such a move, or why not?

*crossposted with updates at realityunwound