Determining the debt share per state would be easy. We would simply use the congressional representation as guide. California would owe 55/435 of the total, Ohio would be responsible for 18/435, Texas’ share would be 32/435, and so on to lowly Wyoming which would owe only 1/435 of the outstanding US debt.
That’s a good idea.
It’s definitely more just. What is one of the reasons for secession though? A growing sentiment that there are simply fundamental differences in terms of how the country is run, financially.
Consider the question: (posed to Texans for example) Who (or what kind of people) are more responsible for the debt, the people in Texas or say Massachusetts?
I’m sure the people in Texas (the ones who want to secede at least) would say “The type (liberal) of people in Mass are more responsible, that’s one of the reasons we are seceding! Why should we pay more of the national debt THEY incurred?”
So while your idea is more just, it still doesn’t effectively divide the debt in a way that makes sense, a way that justifies secession in the first place. At least IMO.
IOW, why secede if one of the reasons to secede is to make a clean and sudden break with not only liberal policies, but the negative effects of such policies? It just doesn’t seem to make sense if the half seceding are simply taking on the same results (the debt for example) if not policies that ostensibly they are leaving behind.