The United States should sell Texas to the highest bidder

I complement my opponent on his brilliant selection of topic and thank him for the opportunity to debate. In the course of this debate I will call upon two general concepts that are critical to the analysis. A brief anecdote serves to introduce these concepts. A tour bus stopped in Amsterdam. Theft is a mainstay of the economy there, so a local thief snatched a woman's purse and ran off with it. The tour, however, contained a significant contingency from Texas. The thieves were then amazed by the speed at which annoyed Texans can run, despite the burden of cowboy boots. A photograph of a small group of Texans chasing thieves in Albania is shown at https://pantherfile.uwm.edu.... (Obviously, it's cause was mistaken.) The purse was recovered, and the thieves were introduced to the two critical concepts of this debate: Principle A, morality; and Principle B, the downside of messing with Texas. Being from Amsterdam, the thieves were previously wholly unacquainted with either concept. The concept of "don't mess with Texas" is further illustrated in the logo of the nuclear submarine USS Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org... Now turning to the specifics of the debate: 1. The $13 trillion deficit was not caused by investment bankers. Only politicians can run a tab of the government's credit card, not investment bankers. The government on it's own volition directly backed half of the bad loans that precipitated the financial crisis. President Obama has announced plans to add $10 trillion to the deficit. If a large sum of money were provided to government by any means, the government would spend it immediately, doing nothing to reduce the deficit. Republicans would object initially, of course, until they are given an appropriate cut. 2. Calling upon Principle A, it is grossly immoral to sell Texas to a foreign power. I know that Europeans are not keen on bending to the will of God as a moral autority, so I will appeal to a higher authority, the United Nations. The UN has determined that people have a right to self-determination. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Europeans had loads of colonies, but that was before the UN became manifest and settled the morality of the matter. The UN is absolute and cannot be questioned, at least not by Pro. Pro falsely equated "selling Texas" with "cutting them loose." Selling slaves is *not* the same as freeing them. The U.S. determined this fact in a long debate known as "The Civil War." 3. Turning to Principle B, Texans now barely put up with the alien culture of the rest of the United States. I believe Pro has stipulated this. If, say, the Second Amendment were to be overturned, Texas can be expected to secede immediately. http://en.wikipedia.org... If they are not all too pleased with the rest of the United States, imagine how angry they would be with China or Saudi Arabia. Neither have gun rights, which rules them out from the get-go. Moreover, the Chinese rarely wear spurs, and the Saudis almost never wear ten gallon hits. Even if a peaceful transition could be temporarily brokered, sooner or later a foreign potentate would slight the memory of Sam Houston, and all hell would break loose. The point here is that total cost to a foreign power for acquiring Texas is (payment to the US to obtain the property rights) + (cost of conquering and ruling the people of Texas) + (cost of repairing the assets destroyed as a consequence of messing with Texas). Texas has 24,782,302 people, each owning a shotgun and two pearl-handled forty-fives, except, of course, for small children, who only have a single sidearm. In addition there are seven Air Force Bases, four Navy bases, and in Texas http://en.wikipedia.org..., plus 23 Army forts, camps, and depots. http://en.wikipedia.org... No American would be foolish enough to try to take the military forces (i.e., their guns) out of Texas, as Americans know that messing with Texas is inadvisable. Consequently, due the required military might only China is even a potentially viable client for taking over Texas. The costs to the Chinese would be astronomical, as they would have to equip, transport, and sustain millions of soldiers for a at least several generations. Actually, converting Texas from barbecue to noodles might take several hundred years, if it is possible at all. The oil wells, cities, and other fixed assets destroyed in the struggle would also have to be replaced at enormous cost. It is possible that the Chinese might not know all the costs when the bidding was announced, but they are not stupid and would soon build a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet would show that a negative bid is required. The Chinese would say, "OK, we'll take Texas off your hands, but you are going to have to pay us big time." How much would Pro bid for his neighbor's mean-tempered rottweiler? How about his bid for 24,782,302 rottweilers, each with a gun and an attitude problem? This does not fully embrace Principle B, but perhaps it clarifies the concept. ======== Even if a large sum were obtained from selling Texas, it would not solve the American debt problem, for the same reason that giving a drunk a barrel of gin will not cure his alcoholism. Granting independence to Texas could be moral, if they voted for it, but selling them to another country is immoral and unacceptable. There would in any case be few bidders, due to the need for a large military to subdue angry Texans (see the photo, linked above) and bidders would demand to be paid rather than offering money. The resolution is negated.