Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union

"No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want"-Ludwig von Mises Rebuttal 1. Civil War 1) It is shaky to rely on past history, because CON is literally using one data point to set precedent, the American civil war of 1865. Hardly a “consistent” pattern. The US government might prefer for Texas to remain a part of the union, but it is incredibly shaky for them to engage in a civil war over it. 2) Our involvement in Libya was minimal. The main strength involved was the National Transitional Council. All the US did was engage in a few bombings. The scale of these wars is nothing compared to what a war between Texas and the US. If the US could engage in whatever war they wanted, they would’ve fought the Soviet Union during the cold war but they did not. 3) The Canadian independence was relatively peaceful. There have been plenty of peaceful movements of secession, as stated previously from African state’s independence, independence of Australia, and independence of nations from the USSR. It is hardly a “rare” occurrence and the independence of nations without war is now the rule, not the exception. 4) While the US does have a massive interest in preventing secession, the act of war far outweighs the benefits. CON also drops my argument of how one can get the American public and the military to support actions of killing Texans when so many Americans know and maintain friendships with these people. This is not the same as attacking a foreign country. 5) US hegemony has not been pivotal in maintaining peace between wealthy nations, since the Soviet Union was a superpower from WWII to 1991, yet wealthy nations did not fight one another and the US did not fight the USSR. 2. Hegemony 1) I have already demonstrated that US hegemony has not lead to stability, using North Korea as an example that CON drops. 2) The US is not providing any military assistant in Syria either so to blame it on UN failure is wrong. UN has made quite a difference in providing stability including creating international law, prosecuting war criminals, providing humanitarian aid to third world nations, and promoting human rights[1]. CON just asserts that the EU cannot act as a unified forced, without evidence. Furthermore, I have stated that hegemony has not been successful in stabilization so there’s no reason a hegemony force has to take over. 3) The idea that the US has been responsible for reducing terrorism is absurd. Terrorism attacks increase as more troops are sent into the Middle East[2]. Bombing innocent civilians does not exactly create a peaceful country that loves western values. Osama Bin Laden specifically stated that his reason for committing 9/11 was due to America’s presence in the Middle East. 3) Instead of lobbying for Congress for money and dealing with the bureaucracy of the border problems, Texans can directly deal with its problem. The US federal government can hardly be considered effective considering 11 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside in the US[4]. Since Texas is right next to the problem, they understand it better then the federal government and could handle it better. 4) The US main concern is using the islands there for their own naval and military purposes. Is there any reason why this matters besides US-Chinese foreign relations? The dispute is mainly irrelevant, only exacerbated through US involvement. There’s no reason why the UN cannot resolve this dispute through its international courts. 5) The US failed to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, with both nations topping the failed state index as the 6th and 9th least stable nations on earth.[3] 3. Economy 1. It is not complex to figure out a taxation plan for those in Texas. They can simply use the same taxation program the old federal government used. 2. Stating that because 15% of the economy is based on exports, does not correspond to 85% of the Texan economy is dependent on trade with the US. Instead, most of the economy is locally based. Local shops, restaurants, schools, roads, and housing are all goods and services provided via the local economy. 3. The brain drain argument would only occur if Texas’s economy were to completely collapse, which I shown would not happen. People dislike moving due to family and friends ties and the expense of moving. 4. While companies might leave, the assets and people who know the information would not. Extent the analysis that they would still exist, just change in name. There are also plenty of companies that either only reside in Texas or exist mainly in Texas. 5. CON’s case on US hegemony and US companies moving contradict one another. Why would corporations move out of Texas if the US is no longer a hegemony? 6. Higher export costs of oil means cheaper oil for citizens residing in Texas. Cheap oil in Texas creates a huge boom to many economic sectors due to its huge value in industry. My Case Economy 1. Once the US economy collapses due to debt problems, then the US would feel the main effects of the collapse, while Texas would only absorb a fraction of the problem. During the global recession, there were plenty of nations that had positive growth levels. 2. Con must be kidding on how he does not understand how unsustainable debt is bad, when there’s empirical evidence of unemployment reaching 25% in European nations with debt-crisis and their problems are still unresolved. If the debt cannot be paid off, then higher taxations, inflation, or painful austerity measures must occur. Once companies first start out, they have to obtain huge levels of debt to obtain their capital. That debt remains, but falls over time. The US debt is increasing over time and is not a start-up nation. As stated previously, debt as a percentage of gdp would fall if it were being used for growth which CON drops. 3. Con’s own source states that “The evidence shows that the country is on a course of spending and debt accumulation that could lead to serious trouble not today or tomorrow but probably 10 to 20 years down the road.”. Getting rid of 2.4 trillion in deficit spending still leads to trillions in deficit spending in a decade. I have previously showed through the US GAO that by 2040, the debt is projected to be at 200% gdp-to-debt. Is Con also serious that entitelement spending are an investment in human capital when social security and medicare is given to seniors after they retire, in other words once they provide no productivity to the economy. This is a joke. Culture Texas has a lot of ethnicities. This does not correspond to a heterogeneous culture. Culture corresponds to geographical approximately, which CON drops. If one were born in Texas he/she would more likely value different things then if he/she were born in New England, regardless of ethnicity. Texas can more easily achieve actions that cater to the needs of themselves rather than be imprisoned by the federal government’s policies. Ability to Secede: Con concedes that immobile infrastructure would remain in the US. Economy of Scale Large Economy of scale is a sufficient condition for corruption, not a necessary condition for corruption. Australia and Canada are large landmasses. They do not have large populations. Canada’s population is 34 million and Australia’s population is 22 million. The US has a population 313 million, which is 9.2 times larger then Canada and 14.2 times larger than Australia. Africa is plagued with problems which cause its governments to be corrupt. There are diseconomy of scales issues and diverse political and cultural opinions that occur if the population is too large. Diseconomics of scale is an economically recognized concept, so the logic is sound[6]. ConclusionTexas is better off without the union. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...