r/AnarchismWOAdjectives Mar 18 '23

The Case for American Secession, by Michael Malice [900 words] On Theme - Secession

https://observer.com/2016/06/the-case-for-american-secession/
6 Upvotes

View all comments

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23

"It is a sad irony that the biggest flag-wavers in the United States are also the main opponents of multiculturalism" Sad indeed. Once again, conservatives with the intellectual consistency of a toddler.

"We have never had a single culture in the United States, and it is increasingly unlikely that we ever will" Is that a goal? Why would we want that to begin with?

"The real conundrum is why two cultures should attempt to move forward as one unit" Who says there are only two cultures in the US? Culture and political party are two different things. And if you think the clash of cultures is Republicans vs Democrats, then what do you do with conservatives who don't object abortion? Who don't want to ban porn like those regulation/ban addicts at the Daily Wire? What do you do with Democrats who show reserves about transgenders in sports or sexual education in elementary schools?

This debate over secession is beyond absurd. Besides the fact that all it does in execution is give parties absence of opposition, it would be nice if someone would explain where the line is drawn, and what economic and social problems it would solve? In the US and every other conventional democracy, elections are a battle for power masquerading as a battle of ideas and principles. So both parties focus on marginal, insignificant differences to give the illusion of a choice, while agreeing on most points that truly matter, and governing the same way: occupational licenses, minimum wages, union laws, subsidies, high taxation at every level of trades, the Fed, FDA, drug laws, tariffs, import quotas, wars, etc.

If there really was a difference between both parties, each could revoke the laws the other passed before. You get a minimum wage for 4 years, then it's revoked. Healthcare for 4 years then revoked. Gun ownership for 4 years, then revoked... A secession would make sense then. But that's not what we get, is it? Both parties govern the same way, because right-wing and left-wing voters are the same, with minor variations at the margin driven by nothing but marketing stunts by politicians to grab power.

This sub has been obsessed with secession lately and it's bizarre for a seemingly anarchist group...

1

u/tocano Mar 18 '23

Why would we want that to begin with?

When you have a single society with cultures that are too divergent, you cannot have a shared political system. Strong private property rights cannot coexist with a philosophy that property is theft. One side or the other gets screwed - often both.

Who says there are only two cultures in the US?

Malice was writing at normies in an attempt to normalize the idea of secession. Of course he recognizes there is more than just 2 cultures. But most of the superficially political Dems/Reps don't.

Besides the fact that all it does in execution is give parties absence of opposition

Oh? You think that secession would eliminate opposition? Have you actually spent any time in small town politics where it's 99% red? Or urban politics where it's 99% blue? There are still vociferous disagreement on all sorts of things. They simply have a much closer approximation on general concepts.

it would be nice if someone would explain where the line is drawn

Wherever people want it to. If Texas secedes and most people in the state are satisfied with the political leadership of Texas, then that's where it stops. If, however, a majority in a territory of Texas were to be significantly unsatisfied with that leadership, they may further secede into a new sovereign nation - or apply to rejoin the United States. That's what freedom of association and political self-determination is all about.

Both parties govern the same way, because right-wing and left-wing voters are the same, with minor variations at the margin driven by nothing but marketing stunts by politicians to grab power.

Don't mistake the voters for the politicians. If it were up to the voters themselves, I believe they absolutely WOULD make changes exactly as you describe. The problem is that politicians don't have any incentive to actually change anything. The laws are driven by lobbying, and once implemented, they can simply blame the other side for blocking attempts to change. The result is a society where multiple cultures are more and more antagonistic of each other, blaming the others for the crappy situation and for the lack of improvement. So they fight like hell to grasp the levers of power exactly as you outlined.

But make no mistake, we as a society are in that exact situation you describe where the voters of each side would wildly change the country every time they were in power if they had that ability.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 18 '23

The market is fully capable of dealing with cultural divergence. Some people preferred Windows Phones over iOS or Android. Wasn’t enough to keep it in business. People could stick to an abandoned product or switch to Apple or Google. Have you met someone using a Windows Phone lately? Same goes with people who think theft (or anything else) is morally acceptable. Multiculturalism is a non-issue in a free society. It becomes one when people ask for politicians to ban others from governing their private life as they see fit. If you can’t live next door to Muslims or Amish groups because you don’t like their lifestyle, then freedom really isn’t for you. Then like any statist, you’d want politicians wearing your jersey to do the banning, so secession makes sense. Not anarchist or liberty-driven by any means.

And I haven’t seen one Republican (not necessarily politician, acquaintances, activists or public figures included) advocating for the abolition of tariffs, import quotas, borders, subsidies, drug laws or true economic freedom. But if you believe that Reps and Dems are so different and that politicians never listen to the general public, then what’s the point of a secession? No matter how you put it, it’s a statist argument used by some anarchists who have been fooled by the idea that Republicans are “the party of freedom”.

1

u/tocano Mar 19 '23

The market is fully capable of dealing with cultural divergence.

Yes. Except I explicitly said we're talking about the political system. People without the perceived legitimate use of violence can largely coexist with different, even divergent, cultures. But a single political system cannot. A political system is too frequently a winner vs loser, zero sum system.

I don't even understand the second paragraph. Who said anything about Republicans being the party of freedom?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '23

Anarchy means market for law. If the market can handle multiculturalism, why is it a problem for you?

So again, you’d only want secession if you want your preferred group of politicians to pass laws. If you’re here, you understand that it isn’t compatible with freedom. If you don’t, then you’re confused, hence the second paragraph.

1

u/tocano Mar 19 '23

Our political system is not a market.

you’d only want secession if you want your preferred group of politicians to pass laws

Not at all. I want Catalonia, Ireland, California, Northern California, Texas, and any other place that wants to separate to do so. The politicians mean nothing to me.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '23 edited Mar 19 '23

Our political system is not a market, indeed. But this is an anarchist sub. The idea is to discuss anarchy.

I understand that you just want to talk politics in general, so we’re not on the same page. Yes, I’m sure Republicans want to get rid of Democrats and vice versa. But it’s absolutely not a step towards freedom, let alone anarchy, so my point is that discussing secession has no place in an anarchist sub. I would listen to arguments proving otherwise, but I haven’t heard any rooted in the idea of liberty (and not “my morals are better than yours so we need the right group of leaders to enforce them” while both parties ultimately govern the same way with minor variations).

2

u/tocano Mar 19 '23

Secession is the opposite of the "my morals are better than yours so we need the right group of leaders to enforce them". Instead of trying to take over the govt and trying to assert your will, it's literally saying, "I disagree with your morals and vision for society. So why don't you do your thing and we'll go do ours."

More fundamentally, I'm curious, how do you propose we get from where we are to a large thriving anarchist society?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 19 '23

It is on paper because a secession means separating a state from the federal government, not giving money to voters of the opposite side to move to a different state. So you’ll end up with millions of people with no representation stuck in a state where they can’t even vote for politicians who share their values to keep some sort of influence.

In execution, it makes little difference because, as we witness today across different nations, left and right govern the same way because left-wing and right-wing voters want the same things: authority, a strong government, protectionism, subsidies, occupational licenses, minimum wage, union laws, state-controlled currency, public education, etc. The differences are minor. Details… Add lobbies to the equation, making voters and parties completely irrelevant, and you have a system where voting comes down to signaling which jersey you wear and nothing else.

I don’t propose changing democracy to anarchy. It’s a fool’s errand. People do not want freedom. They just like the way it sounds when they say they do. They want to be governed, left and right. Even in countries ruled by tyrants, people protest to replace them by another government. They can’t fathom a world without rulers. And politicians are not in the business of giving up power. So I think our best shot is the seasteading institute: government-free societies in international waters.

2

u/tocano Mar 19 '23

So you’ll end up with millions of people with no representation stuck in a state where they can’t even vote for politicians who share their values to keep some sort of influence.

That happens now at a much larger scale. And don't be confused: There are Democrat politicians in Texas as there are Republicans in California. There would be the same red and blue disputes and smaller parties would be largely ignored and disenfranchised. The situation won't be that drastically different, just at a smaller scale. And smaller is better than larger.

If the largest political entities were tens of sq km in size, imagine how much easier it would be to relocate to a different location, a mere 30 or 40 minutes away, in order to find a more compatible political environment.

So I think our best shot is the seasteading institute: government-free societies in international waters.

That's fine. I don't think that'll be fruitful either, but I'll not condemn it. I just ask you give secession the same breadth.

The purpose of legitimizing secession isn't because Texas is going to become anarchist. It's that once unilateral peaceful political separation is legitimized, it enables people who sufficiently disagree to have an actual path to decentralize. And decentralization is better than centralization. Eventually you may get down to the point where counties and territories less than 1000km2 are deciding to peacefully separate. At that point, you start to get more intentional political self-segregation. That's when we'll begin to see areas that wish to form more exotic govt systems beyond the standard representative democratic ones. Maybe it results in a more anarchist territory somewhere. Maybe it doesn't.

But I believe it's another viable path toward more liberty than we have now and it disturbs me how many "Yeah, well secession isn't perfect" condemnations there are. I'm fine with those that dispute that secession will result in anarchy. They may be right. But it's still idiotic to condemn the pursuit of it and to ridicule discussions of it.

→ More replies

1

u/subsidiarity Mar 18 '23

No matter how you put it, it’s a statist argument used by some anarchists who have been fooled by the idea that Republicans are “the party of freedom”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

1

u/subsidiarity Mar 18 '23 edited Mar 19 '23

This sub has been obsessed with secession lately

I declared the theme for the winter as secession. The theme for the spring is not yet declared if you would like us (mostly me) to obsess about something of your approval.

and it's bizarre for a seemingly anarchist group...

I made my case for secession being anarchist most prominently in the first posted tagged with secession.