If you wish, we can consolidate the discussion regarding your "34-EZ" plan into this single thread, rather than letting the topic spill over into every other thread.
All human social organizations exist based on a shared organizational objective, and it is upon this objective that their organizational structures are built.
Within any given enterprise, there exists a multitude of systems, processes, and rules, as well as various distinct departments. These departments engage in a division of labor and collaborate to collectively serve the overarching goals of the enterprise.
However, if a specific department or branch office were to internally consolidate *all* the essential elements required to serve that corporate objective—thereby becoming entirely self-sufficient—it would, in effect, have detached itself from the larger corporate ecosystem. It would have achieved *de facto* independence. Whether or not it chooses to publicly declare this independence—or when it might do so—becomes merely a matter of timing. Prior to any formal declaration of independence, the authority and oversight exercised by corporate headquarters over this entity would have already been reduced to a purely symbolic level.
In reality, it is rare for a single department or branch office to successfully consolidate *all* the necessary elements entirely on its own. In such instances, if an external force were to step in to supply the missing elements—thereby severing that department's or branch's reliance on headquarters—it would significantly accelerate its trajectory toward independence or secession.
You need not be in a rush to roll out your "34-EZ" plan just yet. Instead, I invite you to first contemplate the following question:
If your entire existence and operation were in no way dependent upon the organization, would you still truly be considered a member of that organization? Or, to approach it from a different angle: if the organization provided you with absolutely *no* tangible benefits or advantages, would you still consider remaining a part of it?
Let us return to the topic currently under our scrutiny:
When a specific province within a nation-state acquires *all* the material elements essential for statehood—thereby establishing a self-contained, closed-loop system within its own borders—it has, in reality, already achieved "de facto independence." This remains true regardless of whether it formally acknowledges it, regardless of whether it desires it, and regardless of whether it chooses to make it public.
Furthermore, should the central government—through its policies, measures, actions, or other state-level interventions—disrupt this self-contained "closed loop," the system will instinctively trigger a defensive reaction, generating countermeasures designed to resist such interference. This is not a phenomenon that can be altered by the decisions of any single individual policymaker; rather, it represents the instinctive, systemic response of the entire closed-loop entity itself.
Consider, for instance, the Balochistan issue in Pakistan. Even if the central government were to resort to assassination, leadership replacement, persuasion, bribery, or any other tactic targeting specific individuals within the leadership—none of these actions could fundamentally resolve the underlying issue. This remains true even if those leaders were to become completely subservient to the central government's directives.
The *only* substantive measure capable of truly resolving this issue is to dismantle that internal closed-loop system and fully integrate it into the larger, national-level closed-loop system. Only through such a process can genuine, fundamental integration be achieved.
Now, regarding your "34-EZ" plan: I have repeatedly asked you—who is going to lead the implementation of this plan? Yet, you have still not provided me with an answer. Fundamentally, this issue serves as a reminder that—until the problem I mentioned earlier has been properly resolved—any form of economic planning is entirely meaningless.
Speaking of provinces: among all the provinces across China, the only one that has, for millennia, possessed a highly complete and self-contained systemic loop is Sichuan.
Sichuan possesses every single resource that a nation-state ought to have. In fact, China's entire, fully integrated supply chain for nuclear weaponry is currently situated within Sichuan. It also serves as China's designated strategic reserve province.
So, take a guess: why is it that no one in Sichuan ever agitates for
The goal is not to create isolated “closed-loop provinces” that drift toward secession. The goal is actually the opposite: reduce the dangerous imbalance that was created when the state excessively centralized power, development, investment, and institutional influence into one region for decades while other provinces remained underdeveloped or politically alienated.
Pakistan’s problem was never that provinces became too self-sufficient. The bigger issue was that the state structure became too uneven.
For decades, the establishment primarily focused on Punjab as the administrative, military, and economic core of the country. Most federal institutions, command structures, infrastructure priorities, industrial concentration, and power networks developed around Punjab-centric pipelines. Meanwhile, provinces like Balochistan, interior Sindh, and parts of KP often felt neglected, underrepresented, or approached mainly through security policies rather than equal national development.
That imbalance created distrust.
My 34-EZ model is not about weakening the federation. It is about strengthening the federation by making every province economically relevant, industrially productive, and genuinely invested in the survival of the national system.
A federation becomes fragile when one region dominates too heavily while others feel dependent, excluded, or politically disposable. Balanced development creates stability because people are less likely to feel colonized by the center when they see real participation in national growth.
You are assuming that economic capability automatically leads to separatism, but history does not consistently support that conclusion. Strong regions do not necessarily leave a country if they still believe the larger system is fair, beneficial, and legitimate.
The real issue is legitimacy and trust.
Even your Sichuan example indirectly proves this. Sichuan may have immense strategic depth and self-sufficiency, but it still sees itself as part of a larger Chinese national project. Why? Because the state successfully integrated it politically, economically, institutionally, and psychologically into the national framework.
That is exactly the kind of national integration Pakistan failed to achieve equally across all provinces after independence.
And regarding Balochistan, I agree that assassinating leaders or replacing individuals cannot solve the issue. But that is precisely because the problem is structural and historical, not simply economic. Decades of political exclusion, lack of trust, uneven development, resource grievances, and centralized control cannot be solved through force alone.
So from my perspective, economic reform is not “meaningless until the political problem is solved.” Economic inclusion is part of solving the political problem itself.
A stable federation is not built by keeping provinces weak or dependent on the center forever. It is built when every province feels like an equal stakeholder in the country rather than a peripheral territory managed by the center.
