Gaining the right to secede would be a tremendous milestone in the history of human liberty.
What is meant by secession?
Secession is an act of choice. It is the carrying out of one's desire to no longer live under the government that one was born under. It can be on a large scale, with several regions choosing to secede, or it can be on the smallest scale, at an individual level.
If you affirm large-scale secession, you must also logically affirm individual secession, both for the exact same ethical reason: No one should be forced to participate in something they wish to abstain from. So, if Washington State was to secede from the US, every individual in Washington should still have the right to secede individually from Washington State. Anything less is hypocritical.
Why would anyone want to stop secession?
If you yourself oppose secession on any level, ask yourself: Do you have the right to force someone to belong to an organization that they desperately want to leave? Would you like it if someone forced you to belong to the Dental Association of America, and pay dues every month? Secondly, why would you want anyone on your team who doesn't want to be there in the first place? Maybe as a little child, it is understandable to get angry when someone doesn't want to play with you. But as mature human beings, if we really respect our fellow man, we need to be able to let him go.
Why isn't the current system good enough?
In America today, there is much liberty. You may travel wherever you please, and you may even choose to leave the United States, renounce your citizenship, and live under whichever government you wish. But this is not enough. Sure, the United States is no Iron Curtain. But for humans to have true liberty, we must have the right to literally remove ourselves and our property to outside the jurisdiction of the United States of America. There is an ethical reason for this, and a pragmatic reason as well.
Ethically, land belongs to those that cultivate it. The government holds claim over all the land in the State, but it is the individual that gives the land it's value. By building on the land, farming the land, and trading the land, the individual confers on himself legitimate ownership. All the government ever did was conquer the land. Which act to you seems the most ethical and the most preferable way to determine ownership, if we desire a peaceful society? Obviously it makes more sense to recognize ownership based on peaceful contractual agreements.
So therefore, you are under no ethical obligation to allow your property to remain under the jurisdiction of the United States should you choose to secede. The US government becomes the aggressor once you declare your intention to exist under another government, but your property remains trapped within the boundaries of the United States.
Pragmatically, there is a tremendous reason to allow secession, for anyone who thinks that freedom is important. This is because secession actually effects the government, whereas simply leaving the country does not. If you leave America and become a Swiss citizen, your property either is sold, and is now owned by another American, or your remain control of it, but it still is under US law. Either way, it is taxed and expropriated as the government sees fit.
But, if the government stood to lose something, there would be two main benefits:
First, the government would have to start behaving like any other business. It would have to start taking good care of its clients, in this case, the citizens. It would realize that its very existence depends on how well it can attract citizens to tax. So you would see actual political change. Whatever government becomes like, it would be guaranteed to be far more responsive to the needs of the people that choose, voluntarily, to be ruled by that government.
Second, the natural result would be competition between governments for potential citizens. Obviously, the American government could not satisfy everyone, no matter how good it becomes. So secession will most certainly occur once it is allowed to happen peacefully.
Seceding as an individual, while a natural right that everyone should have, will be very difficult for most people, due to the very interwoven nature of modern society. Only a few people living in more remote areas would be able to successfully secede as individuals and live at the same level of comfort.
Instead of seceding as individuals, most people will choose to secede with a group. Most likely, these groups will be centered in certain regions of the US, and will reflect cultural and geographic similarities. And from that point on, there will be competition between the regional governments to attract citizens.
This would be the flowering of human society. Just as competition in business drives companies to make better, more efficient, cheaper products, competition between voluntary governments would drive innovation and efficiency in health care, military defense, city planning, banking, police services, education, and technology.
Very importantly, there would be far fewer wars, and almost no wars of aggression. Defending a nation always takes fewer resources than invading and occupying a nation, so economically, it makes far more sense to focus on defense than it does to try to conquer other nations.
Modern states like America today can only afford wars of aggression because they can foist the tremendous cost of such a war upon unwilling citizens. American citizens who didn’t agree with invading Iraq, for instance, were forced to pay for it anyways. Even if they moved to Canada, property taxes were stilled collected on the property they once owned.
If secession were allowed, it would only make economic sense for the new, free governments to pursue a defensive foreign policy focused on diplomacy. If the government started an unpopular war, the citizens could simply leave the government and reform, making their new nation on the exact same spot but excluding the old government.
Why secession must be peaceful, and recognized as a political right.
We have seen violent secession already, and it was not pretty. The Civil War in America was the bloodiest war in American history. Violent secession is not preferable because in order to secede with enough military strength to defend the new nation and ensure it’s survival, the new nation must have these three undesirables:
1. A militaristic mentality that undermines personal liberty. The only way for the Confederates to survive for some time against the Union army was by centralizing command and drafting soldiers.
2. Large size. Because of the need to wage war, small-scale secession is not possible when secession must be violent. Therefore individual secession and regional secession could not exist.
3. Laws against secession. Of course, the Confederate States would not allow individuals or regions in the South to secede, even though their nation was a product of secession. This, again, was to preserve the military might of the South. In any nation that is imperiled by war, secession from that nation would probably not exist.
This is why secession must be recognized as a political right for it to succeed. I would support an international convention to recognize secession as a political right in all nations.
Comments
This article is really interesting. I went to school with Mr. Alders, needless to say a very independent and brilliant thinker. My criticism follows: this concept of strictly small-scale secession seems to be only theoretically possible; I feel as though, just like other "greener grass" before it, it will eventually attract those who wish to dominate economically or even militarily. And even if it were to remain small-scale and as little pockets of libertarian independence, there would likely be a different problem entirely: infringement on citizens' rights by these free people who could, say, commit a crime or break another law in a way that is problematic for or disadvantages the steadfast citizens. Continuing on this fascinating idea of "government capitalism," with which I also might try to ironically justify many socialist ideas, I may offer as a counter proposal a more advanced system of city/local government rights with less uniform fiscal and even social regulation.
Jordan writes: "And even if it were to remain small-scale and as little pockets of libertarian independence, there would likely be a different problem entirely: infringement on citizens' rights by these free people who could, say, commit a crime or break another law in a way that is problematic for or disadvantages the steadfast citizens."
Sovereign states of today are charged with the defense and maintenance of their own borders, and nothing would really change. There would just be a much greater number of sovereign states, all with their own separate laws.
In a society that allows secession, if a state exists, then by definition it is responsive to the needs of almost the entirety of its citizenry. Those needs surely include the ethical and effective production of security.
but doesn't secession lead to wars and Lincoln?
those are some pretty radical ideas Mr. Alders. however i have a few questions and comments. first, i agree that any region that secedes must give the option for its citizens to secede. yet why oppose secession? belonging to an organization and belonging to a nation are two very different things. a nation has a military and government structure that can force you to do whatever it wants more or less. an organization only has the power to organize and act, within or outside the law. if you are forced to join the dental association you can just not pay the dues. they have no power over you. a government can take your land, money, and any other property. as for your claim that those who cultivate the land own it, this is untrue. because in the end, land is a part of a nation. you may claim rights to it and rent it but ultimately it's the government's land. that's why they may tax it and take it under eminent domain. i would write more but these character limits are crazy. nice article.
mind blown. but i'm wondering, how would someone realistically go about seceding? if i found some unclaimed land, could i claim it and renounce my citizenship? that would be cool, start my own country. f*** s*** up.
Mr. Alders: That the number of sovereign states would increase is exactly my point of concern. Theoretically, this would be great, but the reality is that people will inevitably abuse this system--especially as states got smaller--to try to dominate or at least commit various forms of crime. While it may be the duty of those respective states to defend the citizens, this effort would often be in vain if states were to secede to the point of complete decentralization; people would be significantly more vulnerable to attack without a strong, centralized military ready to crush any opposition. So yes, this could work, but it would also breed endless new possibilities for all forms of what we consider to be crime. Is that in the interest of greater humanity? My inclination, although this is a truly fascinating idea, is no.
I agreed with Micheal, it is a great article but i think we went over this question in the civil war. i believe that this would just lead to quite a huge mess. I'm sure this would teach people a lot more about government as they would soon find out how important it is as it started to fall apart. with the right to secession on an individual level you would would meet a crazy world of problems and lose control and the ability to enforce laws.
you cant physically separate the land so problems would ensue.
(neighbor succeeds so he can play loud music have drugs and profanity angry neighbor succeeds shoots the other neighbor, and the government cant get involved)
invite to be lawless, i dont want the some groups say the KKK to be able to have there own country.
There are now at least 4 websites that deal with panarchy or panarchism, based upon individual and minority group secessionism. Searches under panarchy and panarchism reveal many more results than an individual can cope with. I just finished an updating of my A to Z on free banking and intend, as my next step, an updating of my prior A to Z on panarchy, panarchism or full exterritorial autonomy or personal law by individual choice - and corresponding communities. Any input from anyone on that subject would be welcomed by me.
I would deny, though that anyone or any group can exclusively claim a whole country, a whole continent or even a whole district for himself or his group, i.e. as much land as goes beyong privately or cooperatively and quite rightfully acquire land. - Even Ron Paul made some sympathetic remarks on that subject. I wish he were as tolerant towards other monetary freedom views than his own. - John Zube, jzube@acenet.com.au. See e.g. www.panarchy.org & www.panarchism.info, also some of my titles on www.butterbach.net .
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!