Any time the subject of "secession" comes up, you get the apocalyptic hand-wringers saying that the "USA" must stay united at all costs. Isn't this the justification Lenin Lincoln used to facilitate the murder of multitudes of people? Yet, the same people who vociferously defend holding the "USA" together in spite of all the reasonable arguments to the contrary are the same ones who oppose "one-world government". So, which is it? They can't have it both ways.
How much "state" is the perfect amount for the statists, and how do they know that the current size of the "USA" is "it"? What are the odds that the status quo is the best possible situation? Maybe it would actually be the "perfect size" by annexing New Zealand (no offense to Kiwis) or by kicking out Florida. Or perhaps a better situation could be had by splitting the "USA" along the Mississippi River. America is not "united" except by a common enemy: the US government.
It is unthinkable to these people that America be "allowed" to break up into smaller, more appropriate bits. Bits based upon demographic regions or simply based on states seceding. They speak about how "we are stronger together". Yet, if that were true, or if they really believed it were true, there is no stronger, bigger "unit" than the entire planet.
Just as I don't support "nations", I do not support "one-world government". Not even if I were able to emigrate to a new politically-unspoiled world. That is because I know there is nothing good or ethical or even "safer" about coercive government of any size.
I advocate the ultimate in secession: down to the level of the individual for permanent "social unit size". For temporary, voluntary, collectives, any size or combination is acceptable, but only as long as membership or participation is completely voluntary and can be unilaterally abandoned by anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason) with no punishment, as long as their legitimate commitments were satisfied. That goes against everything the statists believe. And it shows their hypocrisy beyond any shadow of doubt.
Comments
Makes me wonder if these statists ever think about the fact that D.C., the home of our excessive government, is not really part of the US. It lies in its own little jurisdiction with its citizens lacking any representation in government. I think america would be best served with mutual alliance but seperate and free states that would be more like the countries of europe in their individuality but when s*** hits the fan can come together to fix things. Its obvious that some states are actually parasitic and drain the life out of the rest of them. Also, other states, being so massive, have this annoying way of "trend setting" that become policy nation wide reardless of the protests of the rest of the nation (Kwalifornia).
Good one, Kent. The knee jerk hypocrisy of those who insist "America" remain united, yet reject the one worlders is classic. But, you can't fix stupid...
Your "social unit size" idea makes me shudder with excitement. What a concept! If only we could sell it. And the words temporary and voluntary. New words in todays political environment. My right to ignore the state. I'm in!
I think it was Mike Huckabee who made the quote during the GOP debates (debating Ron Paul) that was basically saying "we need to be united, even when we are making mistakes". Complete sillyness.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!