Is Secession a Good Idea?

[Stallheim]

I guess it does, but still I do not consider defending women and children against aggressors as slavery. I consider it the duty of men.

That is fair enough, as do I. There are other means than conscription that would need to be exhausted first, for me. I suspect that if the Central government (and to some extent State governments) didn't demand that they hold the monopoly on legal violence, there would be other far more appealing and creative defense options, with committed private citizens stepping up and doing their duty. The funny thing about duty is that ultimately it must be chosen not imposed. Consider social welfare for an intriguing comparison.

[Stallheim]

If my right of secession is protected, then no, there isn't any coercion I'm not voluntarily subjecting myself to. I support all volunteer based efforts to uphold the right of secession. Internal to this political system, people do not have property. Externally, volunteering individuals may see things differently. If a man in this Communist state lived on a farm, and he and his family built that farm with their own work, and developed the land with their own work, I would generally consider that to be his land. If he chose to secede from that Communist state, and chose to take his land with him, I would support him in that.
If a man had no property he called his own, his right of secession would still be upheld. He could leave. If his family wanted to stay, well.. that's their choice.
If a person is free to secede, free to leave and take his property with him, and is there by choice... it doesn't matter whether or not you approve of how he chooses to live his life, he is in fact free. If it's simply ignorance that prevents him to leave... educate him. But using force to "free him" from his own ignorance I strongly disapprove of. (not that you would. but it sounds like you would not object to that)

I thought that the original "adventurer" was stepping in and protecting you from the Stasi goons, not forcibly removing you against your will. I was not imagining this Good Samaritan using force against you, though he might be busting up your abusers with extreme prejudiced. It has been compellingly theorized by Austrian Economists that an actual propertyless society is impossible; property might be minimal but there is always something that persons of a culture recognize as inviolate, something they want to keep so bad that they will agree to not take a similar thing from someone else if it secures their claims. (This could be put far better, but I am currently at a loss for the words.) You mentioned the farm, the mixing of ones labor with the natural resources to stake his claim. If you recognize this property right than what about a person's body? Rothbard put it very cleverly when he said that some might contest that you own your own body, many would say that Nature or God does, but when it comes to other men it is recognized that no one else at least has a greater claim to it than you do. From this follows all conceptions of property. The next step is to recognize that the unowned space that a person occupies belongs to no one else more than it does to the person standing there. If another person hurts you, they violate your person. If another person shoves you off of a spot where you are standing they are violating this extended claim of your person (you could say you mixed your labor with that spot of ground). Finally, if you are intimidated or coerced to leave a case could be made that a property violation has been imposed upon you. I don't think that secession can be thought of divorced completely from property, however limited that property might be.

Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty is a short and fascinating read, with a lot to offer this topic. There are some good archived discussions on Mises.org regarding the impossibility of enslaving yourself irrevocably as well, a related discussion. Ethics of Liberty is available as a free PDF on Mises.org. I found the concept of the definition of property being relative to the culture or societal consensus, very disconcerting but Rothard argues it out quite convincingly with far reaching implications. He also makes a very compelling case, in the context of homesteading and stolen property, that government does not legitimately own anything, as it either stole it, received stolen property, or owes it as restitution to those who it has victimized. If you get a chance, check it out, it is fun reading!

[bxm042]

I thought that the original "adventurer" was stepping in and protecting you from the Stasi goons, not forcibly removing you against your will.

He may not be forcibly removing me against my will, but he is using force to prevent me from living my life the way I would like to. This hypothetical version of myself would prefer to live in a rule of law, and your friend came up and beat up Bill (the friendly neighborhood cop) for simply doing the job I asked him to. Without the rule of law, we have nothing, and your friend seems intent on making sure our laws won't be upheld. Bill spent the next week in the hospital, too. Not cool.

Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty

Been meaning to read that for a while now I should probably get to it

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!

There's the rub, how?

What do you mean by how? The same way property owners are to defend their property!

I have heard several supposedly libertarian minded folks argue for more intrusive government so long as it's their agenda being pushed.

Of course I personally don't subscribe to any popular political labels so folks like me would be kept out?

I used the word "libertarian" because that seems to be more popular & palatable but a truly free society will be one where all interactions are voluntary, anything that's not voluntary would be deemed a crime, & once it is proven in court, the citizenship should be revoked, even advocating coercion should be enough to get it revoked, so I suppose as long as one accepts voluntaryism & does not engage in or advocate coercion, it should be fine even if one doesn't call oneself "libertarian".

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession. Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments. In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves. You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction. Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions. Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.

Well, I'm talking about a voluntary society here. I mean if we could have our own country, a TRULY free society, then the government wouldn't have any coercive powers because that'd be anti-freedom & anti-equality. Anti-freedom because you're not really free if government can rob & coerce you, & anti-equality because coercive government means that people in government have rights (right to rob & coerce) that rest of the population don't have, that's NOT equality in any way.

We ought to learn from history, Founders created a great country but they made mistakes too, like giving coercive powers to government, which over time has grown into the leviathon we see today, because once it has coercive powers, it's only a matter of time before various individuals & groups bribe government through money, votes & whatever to use its coercive power to benefit themselves.
Secondly, rather unchecked immigration was one of the major reasons to transform the political attitudes within the country, we must realize that "people are born with socialism while libertarianism has to be taught" (in general) so keeping the "non-libertarians" out would be essential to sustain the free, voluntaryist attitudes within the country.

So if we get a chance to form a new free nation then we must realize the mistakes of the past, remember not to repeat them.

Of course, I'm for secession at any level possible but that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make because a government with no coercive powers can't "burden" its people or start socialism all of a sudden, so long as "non-libertarians" are kept out of the country & the aroma of voluntaryism pervades the air!

[Paul Or Nothing II]

And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

+1

Yes, we can't libertanize the whole country, we've moved way past that now, too many stupid, socialist freeloaders, that's how majority tends to be so we need a place of our own, where liberty can truly prosper

[Pauls' Revere]

This Sunday the people of Catalonia will vote to secede from Spain. It doesnt sound binding but if it passes a referendum will soon follow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nst-Spain.html

[I]On Sunday Catalans go to the polls to choose a new parliament but in so doing it will be with the expectation that a referendum on independence for the region will be swift to follow.[/

[Pauls' Revere]

Get this!

Scotland votes for Independence in 2014!

For the Catalans, like the Scots who will vote on independence in 2014, it's unchartered territory.

[Pauls' Revere]

Texas should lead the way here in the USA. Hell Texas has it's own separate power grid from the rest of the country too.

[osan]

Defense is necessary against aggressors.

Once again you assert without substantiation. For some it is necessary. What about passivists? They refuse to fight no matter who or what is taking over. In their minds, better to be a slave than to commit the sin of violence. Would you suggest we drag the Mennonites away, shove rifles in their hands, and force them to go out and kill people? That is the logic of your position.

Some of us are not going to give up until we win our freedom.

How do you propose to win YOUR freedom when you deny that of others?