Does secession = freedom?

[Mesogen]

I hear a lot of libertarians talk about secession like this is some great thing. Sure Washington DC is corrupt, but why is secession the answer?

Wouldn't most libertarians be against borders and checkpoints? Tariffs and managed trade?

If it's anti-freedom for there to be a checkpoint at the border between two countries like Canada and the US, or for there to be tariffs and duties across the border, then why would people want to place a grid of borders over the entire continent? That's what dissolution of the union would lead to. Maybe there would be some overarching agreement among the states to have free travel and trade, but maybe there wouldn't be. It would be up to each state (now an independent republic) to decide what to do with its borders.

Also, who thinks that it would be easier to keep state governments from being just as corrupt as Washington DC. Hell they are now.

Anyway, I see more problems arising because of secession or dissolution of the union than there are today with our corrupt central government.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Individual secession. Each man his own god and government.

[mport1]

Individual secession. Each man his own god and government.

+1

[heavenlyboy34]

I hear a lot of libertarians talk about secession like this is some great thing. Sure Washington DC is corrupt, but why is secession the answer?

Wouldn't most libertarians be against borders and checkpoints? Tariffs and managed trade?

If it's anti-freedom for there to be a checkpoint at the border between two countries like Canada and the US, or for there to be tariffs and duties across the border, then why would people want to place a grid of borders over the entire continent? That's what dissolution of the union would lead to. Maybe there would be some overarching agreement among the states to have free travel and trade, but maybe there wouldn't be. It would be up to each state (now an independent republic) to decide what to do with its borders.

Also, who thinks that it would be easier to keep state governments from being just as corrupt as Washington DC. Hell they are now.

Anyway, I see more problems arising because of secession or dissolution of the union than there are today with our corrupt central government.

What do you refer to when you say "more problems"? :confused:

[bill50]

The only problem with complete open borders and world free trade is that socialist entities in other countries will try to take us over (again). Other than that complete economics freedom across borders would be fine. Too bad other countries allow socialism.

[Truth Warrior]

Not according to my dictionary. ;)

[Mesogen]

What do you refer to when you say "more problems"? :confused:

You would basically have all the problems with government that you have today, corruption and tyranny, except there would be the added problem of dealing with 50 sovereign nations competing over resources. You'd have this maze of taxes, currency exchanges, checkpoints, tolls, restrictions on travel, passports, papers, etc. to deal with in place of the almost total free travel and trade we have today under the union.

We would turn into some kind of super Europe.

[Sandra]

But not all states would suffer economic hardships. Right now the government bars states from creating individual economies so we're under one central bank. Sure, it will be a hassle if some states erected checkpoints, but it's that state's decision to do so because of the laws it enacted. This would be a reality if a state repealed gun laws and had to search vehicles for guns (drugs, whatever).

[Sandra]

You would basically have all the problems with government that you have today, corruption and tyranny, except there would be the added problem of dealing with 50 sovereign nations competing over resources. You'd have this maze of taxes, currency exchanges, checkpoints, tolls, restrictions on travel, passports, papers, etc. to deal with in place of the almost total free travel and trade we have today under the union.
We would turn into some kind of super Europe.


We lost the travel part after 9-11. We've lost the trade part too.

[Freedom 4 all]

IMHO it depends on who's seceeding from what. If NH seceeds or Texas under Ron Paul then that would be a good thing as the hypothetical new states created would be freer and more libertarian than the one that they left. On the other hand, in Canada we had in the 80s (and still today to a lesser extent) a powerful group wanting Quebec to leave and become a Marxist country (ACTUAL Marxist, not the way Obama is a marxist). In that case secession would not have been a good thing. If you're new to hearing about the whole Quebec thing check these out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLQ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

[Mesogen]

We lost the travel part after 9-11. We've lost the trade part too.

I said almost.

And so how would secession solve this problem?

[dr. hfn]

secession would be awesome!

[Sandra]

I said almost.

And so how would secession solve this problem?


States would not be tied to federal laws that prevent prosperity. If a state allows banks to use only backed currency, then their economy is stabler than surrounding states who still function with bad money.

That state will then look more attractive to other Americans.

[Zippyjuan]

That is a huge if. States do not have any assets to back up a currency even if they wanted to. No states have gold or silver reserves. There is also a big assumption that the government of a secceding state would be a more libertarian one than the US presently is. It could be a worse government.

If only one state did create their own currency it could hurt their economy because the other states would prefer to not deal with them because of the hassle and costs of converting their currency over to trade.

[nate895]

That is a huge if. States do not have any assets to back up a currency even if they wanted to. No states have gold or silver reserves. There is also a big assumption that the government of a secceding state would be a more libertarian one than the US presently is. It could be a worse government.

If only one state did create their own currency it could hurt their economy because the other states would prefer to not deal with them because of the hassle and costs of converting their currency over to trade.

States can make gold and silver legal tender if they want to, according to the Constitution.

[Sandra]

That is a huge if. States do not have any assets to back up a currency even if they wanted to. No states have gold or silver reserves. There is also a big assumption that the government of a secceding state would be a more libertarian one than the US presently is. It could be a worse government.

If only one state did create their own currency it could hurt their economy because the other states would prefer to not deal with them because of the hassle and costs of converting their currency over to trade.


States would have to compete for monetary superiority. Fiat currency can't compete with backed currency.

As far as changing currency, hey, it's not convenient but it does work.

[Zippyjuan]

States can make gold and silver legal tender if they want to, according to the Constitution.

But they do not have any gold or silver.

[heavenlyboy34]

But they do not have any gold or silver.

They can barter till they can afford it. :D FREE MARKET FTW!!

[austin944]

Also, who thinks that it would be easier to keep state governments from being just as corrupt as Washington DC. Hell they are now.

Anyway, I see more problems arising because of secession or dissolution of the union than there are today with our corrupt central government.

Most states require a balanced budget. I would feel much more comfortable living in a state where there are no large debt obligations, rather than being held to account for a 10 trillion dollar debt and trillions more in unfunded liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare.

I think a balanced budget limits the size and scope of government and that's a good thing. For that reason alone, I would support peaceful succession. I don't believe the Federal government will ever get around to passing a balanced budget amendment, and I don't think it can and still support all those unfunded liabilities.

I think the details of peaceful succession could be worked out, there are plenty of other countries which are smaller than the individual states and they function just fine. Other countries use the US dollar as their currency, a state could do the same (temporarily) until a better solution could be found.