Before we explore both sides of this intriguing suggestion, let it be said that it deserves serious consideration, and not just because the president-elect of the United States suggested it. It also deserves our perusal on its own grounds. After all, that more than 3000-mile border between the two countries is not ordained by the Man Upstairs; it is an artificial, human, edifice that can be deconstructed. It calls for more than mere laughter, which has been forthcoming from all too many quarters.

What is the yes side of this? Canadians would gain, economically. There would not be any capricious tariffs on the export of goods southward, as threatened by President Trump. Nor would there be any such impediments to trade at all, as at present. (I once thought NAFTA was set up to accomplish this element of the free trade philosophy, but that did not work out…) There would be zero such legal commercial obstacles between the US state of Canada and its 50 other political jurisdictions, in the same manner, for example, as exists between, say, Iowa and all the other forty-nine. This would enhance specialization and the division of labor, Adam Smith style, and immeasurably enhance Canadian prosperity. The present United States would also gain in this regard, but less so, as they already have a gigantic internal fully free trade area (one of the important sources of great wealth in this country). In contrast, there are economic illiterates who want to set up and maintain internal tariffs within Canada.

Others who would gain include the US Democratic Party. Canada is far more woke, socialist and egalitarian than the United States. Adding this country to the US collection of states would be akin to tallying another California. The Democratic Party has long wanted to confer US statehood on Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico to enhance their vote totals. Why cavil at Canada?

Who would lose? Obviously, the US Republican Party. Does the President not realize he is opening up a Pandora’s Box with this suggestion of his? The President specifically placed off the table any military attempt to swallow Canada. But he did threaten economic sanctions. If a 25% tariff did not bring this northern country to its economic knees, one of 100% most likely would. Certainly, a total prohibition of trade with the US would greatly reduce Canadian economic prosperity.

So, should Canada make a different sort of deal with the United States, if anything like this threat ever actually comes to pass? One offer would be to enter the country to the south of it not as one state, but as eleven: each and every province, plus the North West Territories, the Yukon and Nunavut combined into one. The argument against this latter idea is that these latter three hardly have any people in them, even all together. Well, Wyoming is not overpopulated either. The case against the former is that Prince Edward Island is so small, hardly deserving of the honorific of statehood. But Rhode Island is no giant, either. Further, the Canadian population is roughly one tenth that of the US. Since the latter has 50 states, Canada should join the union not as one single state, but as a compromise, as five of them.

There is yet another reason to oppose this amalgamation. Sometimes we can see the true effect of complicated situation by expanding upon it. If Canada joined the United States, there would be one less country on the face of the earth. Let us extrapolate. Suppose amalgamation became the order of the day. After the United States imbibed Canada, it would proceed with Mexico and Central America. China would certainly gobble up Taiwan. Continuing, each of South America, Europe, Asia and Africa would each become one country. There would now be five nations, one per continent. Anyone remember a novel that featured something like that, only three nations? Yes, in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the world is divided into three super states: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Do we really want to go in this direction?

Let us take this even one step further: world government. If this entity were run democratically, the globe would take on the political economy of China and India or, maybe even worse, the United Nations (God forbid: Israel has been indicted for various crimes by the latter twice as much as all other nations combined!). Speaking as a Jew, I would not like this one bit. My people are continually being chased out of one country after another.  With a one world government, there would be no place to run. Mars is not yet open for settlement.

No, the optimal number of counties is not one, nor three, nor five, nor, even, the present number of them, 195. If anything, we should move in the very opposite direction, more of them, not fewer. We should encourage Alberta and Quebec to secede from Canada (for very different reasons); the Basques from Spain; Greenland from Denmark; dare I say it, the South from the North (well, at least the coasts from the central part of the United States).

Well, maybe better to leave all of this alone. Here’s to inertia, Mr. President.

Obviously, Canada will accept no such deal. But waitasec. Why be so standoffish? Why not demonstrate the much vaunted Canadian welcome mat? This country should offer the US provincial status! “Province-hood for the United States” should be the motto for this new initiative.

Walter E. Block is Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans.