Questions & Answers

w )The concept of breaking up the US is a fairly radical idea, and obviously, the proposition comes with a lot of questions. Let’s dive into some of them.

Without the United States of America, wouldn’t there be anarchy?

There’s no evidence that the majority of Americans want to live in an anarchist society. Of course, anarchy simply means living without the existence of a legal structure known as a state; it does not mean violent chaos. If there are people who want to live in communities with the absence of any kind of political system and rely on nonviolent, voluntary interaction, we completely support that. But that’s not what we’re specifically advocating.

We know that’s absence of government is not the preferred system for most people. So while we don’t object to anarchy, it’s not our recommended solution for everyone and we don’t believe that anarchy would result if the United States as a nation state were dissolved.

How do you propose America’s peaceful separation? Secession?

Secession would definitely be a great step. We already have 50 states, states that were supposed to be – according to the Founders’ vision – individual nations in a constitutional compact. Let’s start there and make them sovereign nations once again without any ties to the other 49 states. 

They can either secede themselves, or perhaps there can be an official dissolution of the “united” states on a federal level – if the appetite from the populace is strong enough, we encourage constituents to lobby their representatives to draft legislation that would legally dissolve the United States of America.

From there, we encourage more decentralization. There are very few states with a homogeneous culture. New York City is culturally different from the rest of New York state. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are very different from the rest of Pennsylvania. The same holds true for Southern and Northern California. Again, why should people of different cultures live under the same political system just because they happen to live in geographical proximity to one another?

We want people to be happy and flourish with like-minded individuals who support the same values. There’s no reason the 50 respective states have to be the final iteration of these communities.

I live in one part of the United States. If a state establishes a system that’s more favorable to my values in the opposite part of the country, what do I do? I have a job and I can’t just move.

That would be an obvious problem for millions of people. At the moment, you might live somewhere in which the community doesn’t jive with your points of view – like a conservative living in San Francisco, for example. But you have a job where you are and the logistics of suddenly picking up and leaving are complicated.

However, this wouldn’t happen “suddenly.” There would be time to tell where those areas that seem more attractive to you would be located. You could make plans to change jobs or negotiate with your current employer to work remotely as you make the move to the new location.

There are several solutions to this problem, and as complicated as it might seem, we think that the alternative to our country remaining as one political entity is worse.

In addition, as technology advances, there’s a real possibility that you could remain in your current location while living under a different political system from your nextdoor neighbor. “Private governments” that provide resources and services to subscribers could be created. This seems far-fetched, but such considerations have not been seriously vetted and should be discussed in discourse of the topic of national separation.

Are you advocating violent revolution?

Absolutely not. We are 100% committed to a peaceful separation of the states, along with further decentralization. The purpose of this movement is precisely to avoid unnecessary violence. If more people realize that there is no need to fight when political binds can be dissolved, we believe they will understand that’s a preferable solution.

We do believe that if the USA is allowed to continue, violence will continue and the possibility of a violent revolution becomes greater. We want to avoid that.

What if the US separates and ethnocentric/white supremacist communities are created?

That’s certainly a possibility. We do not advocate white supremacy or any form of racial identitarian political structures, but we accept that some might base their communities on such backward principles (although in 2020, we believe that the number will be vanishingly small).

Again, a small concentration of white supremacists (or for that matter, Afro-, Latino-, or Asian-centric groups) that can’t politically affect others is a far more preferable scenario than such a group participating in a shared political system that includes people of diverse ethnic populations.

In the same vain, we can envision all kinds of communities based on ethnicity or religion. There would no doubt be autonomous Muslim, Christian, and Jewish states that establish laws based on their own values. There would be states that focus on the cultural traditions of their respective ethnicities. We encourage all of this because it allows people to live and thrive in the kind of social or political environment that best suits them without having to worry about the influence of others who might share the exact opposite worldviews.

Wouldn’t the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution be a better alternative to separation?

In theory, states who exercise their Tenth Amendment rights would do a lot to mitigate the problems we face on a federal level. However, we have had the Tenth Amendment since the inception of the United States, and as time went on, this feature of the Constitution has been widely ignored. Yes, there have been states who legalized marijuana in opposition to federal laws. States have different minimum wages. Both states and cities have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

But the fact is that states don’t think of themselves as independent nation states as the Constitution had envisioned when it was written. They think of themselves as part of an enormous “blob” that is the USA. We think that blob – like the famous 1950s horror movie – is destructive and a danger to the future of peaceful society.

Don’t you agree that diversity is our strength and what makes America great?

We aren’t saying diversity isn’t positive, but under one gigantic political entity – one that says a few hundred people in one mid-Atlantic city should dictate one-size-fits-all policies to 330 million others – diversity has become divisiveness.

Diverse cultures hold diverse values and national one-size-fits-all policies have proven to increase resentment among those of differing values. Our government has become so powerful that every election is now a struggle among these diverse ideologies to see which one can dominate the others. That’s a recipe for disaster as it continues.

We think that diversity can remain a desired feature of separated societies as long as they share similar values. Without that, there will always be conflict. The USA has that writ large, and we want to find the most peaceful solution to remedy it.

Is your fear that there will be another American civil war?

We don’t predict a war in the sense of North vs. South, in which armies line up against each other, but we think there will be armed conflicts. We’ve seen escalation since Trump assumed office, and there’s no reason to think it won’t ramp up. 

Soon, pepper spray and bats won’t be enough for those participating in the Antifa-BLM vs. Patriots-Proud Boys altercations. There will be gunfire exchanged. We’ve already seen this with the Kyle Rittenhouse example, and the use of molotov cocktails and IEDs used in other protests.

More people will be hurt and killed. We want to avoid that by eliminating the political ties that cause friction between ideological opponents.

How can you guarantee that decentralizing the U.S. will solve the problems facing the country?

We don’t claim separation will solve problems and guarantees are incompatible with freedom. Our point is that any problems (as well as benefits) created by whatever governments are created through decentralization will be limited to their respective populations rather than all 330 million people living under the current system.

Of course there will be problems. All societies face problems. We’re not advocating a Utopian heaven on Earth. We’re simply stating that the fewer people one political system can affect, the better. Communities based on whatever principles and goals its citizens choose – socialist, capitalist, etc. – will face their own challenges and will become social laboratories on how best to address them. 

What if we elect a president or other politicians who can truly unite Americans?

That’s a nice idea, but try to think of a politician in your lifetime who has “united” Americans. I guarantee if you can think of one, we could give you examples of the fierce opposition that exists/existed to that individual.

The idea that “we just need to elect the “right people to office” has been repeated as long as we’ve all been alive, and we’re still waiting for those magical, messianic “right people” to be elected. 

Yes, we’re sure you can name this or that person who you really like, and even if that person was truly a great political leader, the ability to elect one “right” president, 435 “right” congress people, 100 “right” senators, and so on at the state and local levels is extremely difficult to achieve and sustain.

The fact is that anyone you think is the right person will be viewed as the complete opposite by those who don’t share your ideology. It’s a fool’s errand to think it can be achieved. Sorry, but it’s time to let go of that dream before you realize you wasted a vast majority of your life waiting for it.

If you think that things will go back to “normal” once Trump is out of office, we strongly disagree. Trump did not create the divide in American; he exposed it. Americans were already going their ideological separate ways. 

More than 60 million people voted for Trump. You can’t expect them to be content with the pre-Trump status quo after he’s gone. If the goal for his political successors is to marginalize them for what they perceive as their racist, sexist, etc. views, that’s going to end badly. 

Rather than stoke further conflict, we believe parting ways is a much more desirable solution.

What do you suggest as a next step toward peaceful separation?

This website is merely a conversation starter, but our goal is to get the idea of peaceful separation into the cultural zeitgeist. The more we can increase it in the public discourse, the more progress we can make. But we want and need the participation of you and other visitors.

We want people to talk about it more as they see societal conflicts and political instabilities persist. We want people to realize how exhausting it is to continue fighting ideological opponents with whom you are forced to share a gigantic and ever-encroaching political system and begin to become comfortable with and talk about the possibility of peaceful separation.

We know people desire peace over conflict. We also know that the United States has passed the point of no return. There is no coming together; no common ground to be reached. It may be a pessimistic view, but it’s reality and it’s way passed time to come to grips.

We want you to start speaking with your friends about peaceful separation. If you attend town halls with your congressman, ask them about the concept. Make others start to think about it. We hope that this website becomes more trafficked so that we can spread the idea, but your participation, once you realize how pragmatic it is, will be integral in helping spread the message.

Share this site with family, friends, or debate opponents on social media.