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

Rebuttal:C1: Civil War CON provides examples of un-peaceful secessions, but ignores peaceful secessions. Canada and Australia peaceful secede from the British Empire. This occurred even after the “precedent” that colonies cannot secede without civil war, since the US had to fight a bloody war and India was unable to secede after rebellion. This means we can assume precedent is unimportant. Analyzing historical trends from more than a hundred years ago to make modern predictions is shaky grounds since modern society is different both technologically and culturally from the past. Modern society has two problems: a) Stronger anti-war sentiment US citizens have a stronger anti-war sentiment and do not want American soldiers to die. In a time where people are expected to live longer and have better lives, death is a greater loss. In the Iraq war, 4,422 American soldiers were killed[1]. While this might seem like a large number, this was over the course of a decade and previous wars had much higher casualities, such as WWII where the death toll was over 400,000[2]. However, despite the low death toll that Iraq caused on US soldiers, Americans still strongly opposed the war, with the majority now opposing it[3]. There’s no way that the American people would accept the killing of Texan civilians in the event that they secede. While killing those in foreign countries is one thing, it is another thing to kill Texans in which most Americans know many people from Texas. b) Unlikely for wealthy nations to engage in war with one another Not since WWII, have “wealthy” nations fought one another (Pre-WWII times, the world was way less wealthy then it is today). Nations recognize the devastating effects that this type of warfare would create, hence why the USSR and the US never engaged in direct warfare. The US has not engaged in warfare with nations like Iran or North Korea, two nations that are a bigger threat to the US and weaker nations then Texas would be which is a son With a strong defense contracting C2: Hegemony CON lists the harms the US would face If Texas decided to secede. However, this is irrelevant to the debate since the Resolution is about whether it would be in Texas’s best interest to secede, not the US’s best interest if they secede. CON is wrong on the idea that US hegemony is needed to keeping world security. The effectiveness of the US military is weak. Many unstable dictatorships like North Korea and China have nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the US has difficulty fighting weak nations like Vietnam so there’s no way we could expect the US to fight serious world security threats through strength alone. The spreading of western values, the UN, and the interdependency and interconnectivity of people and nations based on globalization has played a more critical role in maintaining peace then the US military ever has. The US is also not the only source of world security. NATO, the UN, and the European Union would still exist in a post-US hegemony world. Furthermore, cross-reference my previous argument on US’s unsustainable debt and it is unlikely that the US will maintain long-term hegemony. C-3 Economy: Cross-apply my previous analysis that a civil war would unlikely occur. Texas also has a strong exporting economy, with exports totaling $192 billion[8]. In the event that America engages in trade protectionism, Texas can rely on plenty of other nations for goods/services. It borders Mexico and is not landlocked, allowing trade to occur between other foreign nations. Trade protectionism against Texas would hurt the US more than it would hurt Texas, which would make the US unlikely to strongly engage in it. Programs like NASA would still exist if Texas were to secede. They would just be renamed and reorganized. The US government cannot take this infrastructure from Texas because it’s immobile. Plus most of the people with the skills to work would still be there, so there’s no reason why Texas just can’t create their own space program. Also considering that most oil production occurs in Texas[9], corporations that drill in Texas would favor Texas over the US. The US federal stimulus was a giant failure and did not help Texas’s economy at all. According, to the white house's own projection, the US did worse witht the stimulus in place[10]. Empirical evidence confirms that fiscal multipliers are non-existent in nations with high debt-to-gdp ratio[11]. However, Texas has a low debt-to-gdp ratio so it could create a fiscal stimulus program if needed. Texas also gives more in taxes then it receives. Taking money and one hand and putting it another does not benefit Texas. There’s no reason why Texans cannot just use their own funds to finance programs that were once part of the federal government or use that money to buy goods/services or make investments. My Case Economy: Pro seems to agree with my analysis of the problem of US’s debt places on the economy. His argument is that the economic effects of civil war would be worse. However, as I already explained, a civil war simply would not occur in a secession movement. Con’s analysis of debt is wrong. If the US debt was funding infrastructure and science, then that would not be unproblematic. However, science research only makes up $43.5 billion in funding[4]. Infrastructure spending only makes up $505 billion[5], including both federal, local, and state spending. The US budget is $3.54 trillion, with most of it going to medicare, Medicaid, social security, and the military[6]. If debt was truly used to funnel growth, then at steady state conditions they’d be a reduction in a gdp-to-debt ratio, not an increase. This is because any debt increase would be offset by gdp growth. We already have examples of the problems of government debt with the European-debt crisis, in which this crisis caused Greece’s and Spain’s unemployment rate to reach approximately 25%. Culture: While there is some source of cultural heterogeneity, the amount of cultural heterogeneity in Texas, is obviously less than that of the US, so the argument still stands. Texans are more united in culture based on geographical proximately and the passing of culture to children through church, upbringing, and school. While Democrats obviously exist in Texas, they are certainly more conservative than most Democrats and still instill Texan values. Two Texan congressmen are part of the “Blue Dog Coalition”[7] a caucus of Demcorats that identify themselves as conservatives to moderate Democrats. Ability to Secede: Extend argument. While mobile infrastructure that the federal government owns would be absorbed, immobile infrastructure cannot. How can the US federal government move a building? The massive economic asset that Texas holds while the US is in a debt crisis is the reason why Texas should secede. As the US grows deeper into debt, the federal government will try to take advantage of Texas’s economic assets to funnel its debt. Economics of scale/Population: China and India are riddled with problems. India and China are both listed as “warning” in the Failed State Index[12]. They also do poorly on the corruption perception index. The larger the organization, the easier it is to get away with corruption since there’s less accountability. Nations listed as “sustainable” have population levels similar to Texas[13]. While the US does not do terribly on the list, it is not the best. State governments help offset these problems, but states are becoming less relevant as federal power increases. This provides evidence that the problems of diseconomics of scale and large populations occur. [1]http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4]http://tinyurl.com... [5]http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...[7]http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...[9]http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11]http://tinyurl.com...[12]http://tinyurl.com...[13]http://tinyurl.com...