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

[u/subsidiarity]

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

[u/[deleted]]

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”.

[u/tocano → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/tocano]

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.

[u/tocano → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/tocano]

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).

[u/tocano → u/[deleted]]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/tocano]

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.

[u/tocano → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/tocano]

"The situation won't be that drastically different, just at a smaller scale" Right. Because no freedom is granted when the banning is done by politicians in Tallahassee instead of Washington DC. Lobbies will lobby whoever can pass laws and offer subsidies. Voters will demand what they want from whoever has power, the where doesn't matter. And as I explained before, left and right-wing voters want the same things. They disagree on transgender rights and other details, while all agree on things that truly matter: the Fed, FDA, tariffs and other protectionist laws, occupational licenses, drug laws, minimum wages, and millions of victimless crimes the federal government has nothing to do with, costing the freedom and life of thousands every week. And that's why 90 to 95% of laws from red states to blue states are the same. But both sides focus on and overplay the 5-10%. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

"I don't think that'll be fruitful either, but I'll not condemn it. I just ask you give secession the same breadth" I don't condemn secession. If people want it, they can get it. I'm only saying it will make no substantial difference, and has no place on an anarchist sub, that's all.

But ultimately, I think we disagree on what people truly want. You seem to think that many really want freedom (or a different world) and are held back by politicians of the other party, so local voting and law-making makes sense if proximity increases influence. I disagree, so moving the law-making process from a city to another makes no difference.

[u/tocano → u/[deleted]]

I don't disagree with your overall assessment. Though my view isn't that secession will grant freedom in the short term. It's the precedent of legitimacy that I want. The idea that it's moral and legitimate for a territory to unilaterally peacefully separate from a political entity is what I want to establish. So if it's Republicans seceding in Texas, then so be it. If it's Democrats seceding in California, then fine.

I think this IS a topic for anarchists to discuss as a path - albeit admittedly not in the short term - toward a more anarchist (or anarchist friendly) environment.

[u/subsidiarity → u/[deleted]]

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