“Then if a state wanted to be socialist, it could knock itself out doing so”
But socialism is predicated on confiscating money from the productive classes. Socialists are always parasites and cannot co-exist with capitalists. Even if a wall of economic separation could be erected between socialist and capitalist states, the socialist, by his very Luciferian nature, would seek to destroy the capitalist as an end in itself.
All true. But if — as is part of this idea of virtual secession — the federal government was not using its force and authority to extract money from Free states and transfer it to Socialist states, and if — as is part of this idea of virtual secession — Socialist states funded their programs with whatever monies they could raise in taxes from their citizens and businesses doing business in their state — it they killed capitalism within their borders, they would have to deal with the fallout, not the Free states which would have an altogether different embrace of capitalism.
Unless a Socialist state wanted actually to try to go to war with a Free state in order to take its resources — which just isn’t likely or practical — the Socialist states would be reduced to what they’re doing now — being beggars or changing course. Free states would have no obligation to bail them out. The Socialist states would simply have to do austerity cuts or whatever. Or attract more rich people to live in the state and pay the tax bills.
IOW, yes, you are right that Socialists always try to destroy capitalism. But in this scenario, they would only have the ability to affect capitalism in their own state. Therefore, they would be the first the feel the effects of destroying their state’s capitalism. Without any way to tap into other people’s money through federal government wealth transfer payments, the Socialist state would quickly realize it has no choice but to moderate toward a better environment for capitalism.