A National Divorce?

Dave Smith and Reason's Zach Weissmueller discuss the libertarian case for and against breaking up the United States.

----

Is it time for blue states and red states to stop fighting over their differences and just get a divorce?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R–Ga.), along with many on the political right, says it's time to seriously consider breaking the country apart.

The Libertarian Party (L.P.) has also been promoting this idea on Twitter since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

"Pro-lifers, why share a country with those who support the dismemberment of babies in the womb?," the L.P. tweeted in June. "Pro-choicers, why share a country with those who would take a woman's right to abort away? #NationalDivorce."

The politics of abortion are thorny and contentious even among libertarians, but what about when it comes to the more straightforward libertarian positions on free speech, guns, and private property? Is trampling on individual rights more legitimate when a state or city government does it?

Why would it be acceptable at the local but not the federal level to relinquish our liberties to the tyranny of the majority?

Also, the kind of national divorce between red and blue America that partisans like Greene are calling for doesn't accurately capture the rich political diversity of a country designed from the founding to contain multitudes.

When I tweeted that talk of a "national divorce" implies "there are only two sides, that you must choose one," and that the discussion is mostly about "tribal rage," I got a lot of pushback, including in the form of this map, showing America divided into its thousands of counties, suggesting that we can Balkanize into a limitless number of political tribes.

"I love how [discussing a national divorce] gets people thinking about something that seems almost off limits," says comedian, podcast host, and possible L.P. presidential candidate Dave Smith. I talked with Smith about the possibility of a national divorce after we exchanged words on Twitter about it. You can see a fuller discussion between us in the video above. He says the topic is a political litmus test.

"I think the question becomes how bad do you really think this current situation is?" says Smith. "Is it an inconvenience? Or is this something that is really dangerous? And I think the situation of us being a union right now is very dangerous."

The increasing centralization of political power in America is indeed concerning and dangerous. But is rooting for the breakup of the U.S. at this moment in time really all that libertarian?

Watch my conversation with Smith in the video above.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller; editing and graphics by Regan Taylor

Photos: Jeff Malet/SIPA/Newscom; Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom; Monica Jorge/Sipa USA/Newscom; Ron Adar/M10s/MEGA/Newscom/RAAST/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; Stefani Reynolds/picture alliance/Consolidated News Photos/Newscom

[jamespier]

“I would be for a national divorce IF a real fascist has already taken over” - there seems to be a failure of logic here. Once that fascist has taken over, the national divorce is not going to be an option.

[Notsram]

Wait... I should be hesitant about leaving the Federal Government (that doesn't give a shit about my rights) because I'm concerned about how California is going to govern itself?

That's ridiculous. California already doesn't care about citizen's rights, or private property.

[franciscodanconia]

The stupid thing is, if we went back to federalism and leftists could just let other states live and let live, we could stay together as a country that may have differing local views. You know, like the Founders intended?

[CountArtha]

"We have the Tenth Amendment"

Great. When do we start using it?

[DegreesOfThree]

These things never unwind gradually. They get worse and worse until something breaks.

[darthpotato]

The issue is that red states will have lower taxes so companies will leave blue states (already happening) and liberals will follow to red states.

[JohnCBarsoom]

I was a Libertarian because I just wanted to be left alone. I became something else when I realized they would never leave me alone.

[ianphillips]

The current administrative state would never stand to be seriously scaled back, let alone dissolved. They would lash out violently and vindictively at anyone who actually represented a threat to their wealth and position. Zach is not acknowledging this.

[TeamGreenBurrito]

National divorce implies these people would leave us alone after giving them what they want. In other words, repeating the same mistakes we’ve been making for the past 60 years that has gotten us to this point.

[glennvastine]

How bad must it get to finally divorce?
This isn’t a catholic marriage.
There can be acceptable de-coupling.
Marriage must include two voluntary members. I haven’t felt like a voluntary spouse in this marriage for a long time. What we can not become is China. Or Russia. Or even Canada at this point in history. We need to lead the world in civility.

[wallpello_]

"Is breaking up the US really that libertarian" yes very much yes

[Rossdiesel]

every time Reason interacts with Dave I remember how unimpressive most regime libertarians are.

[stymiesnerdly]

Why not rightfully give Michael Malice credit for starting this discussion, well before any Roe v. Wade decision too.

[WRATHUSA]

Libertarianism in its purest form is literally anarchy.
Why not adhere to the Constitution? We have the right to form a new government if our current government who works for U.S. fails U. S., by becoming corrupt or tyrannical. The very reason we have the second amendment.
We were all sovereign states we United for strength don't forget that and if you think for a minute that strength isn't needed in the world then you're delusional.

[howardroark]

“A smaller government, I don’t think, is inherently more libertarian.” Zach really said that 😅

[FrmanTV]

Dave Smith makes Reason clutch their pearls.

[joelnorman]

The part y'all are forgetting is that most state constitutions already have all the bill of rights and civil liberties parts written into them. Many civil liberties issues should be lawsuits in state courts rather than go to the feds.
Yeah, I know that states can also ignore their constitutions just like the feds ignore their constitution. And that's when it becomes self evident that it is time to declare independence. Jefferson predicted we'd have to keep starting over . . .

[johnwhick]

Gotta give this guy a lot of credit. He left up the comments.

[HeinzGuderian_]

I've been saying for decades the L Party needs to focus on local and State elections instead of wasting time and $$ on National elections. Prove you can run small governments and then go for the big one.

[Guillermo-dc]

In Texas we have got "TEXIT." Also the western province Alberta in Canada just passed the "SOVEREIGNT ACT."