Is Secession a Good Idea?

[Origanalist]

Daniel J. Mitchell


I’m not talking about secession in the United States, (Why not?)where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).

But what about Europe? I have a hard time understanding why nations on the other side of the Atlantic should not be allowed to split up if there are fundamental differences between regions. Who can be against the concept of self-determination?

Heck, tiny Liechtenstein explicitly gives villages the right to secede if two-thirds of voters agree. Shouldn’t people in other nations have the same freedom?

This is not just a hypothetical issue. Secession has become hot in several countries, with Catalonia threatening to leave Spain and Scotland threatening to leave the United Kingdom.

But because of recent election results, Belgium may be the country where an internal divorce is most likely. Here are some excerpts from a report in the UK-based Financial Times.

Flemish nationalists made sweeping gains across northern Belgium in local elections on Sunday, a success that will bolster separatists’ hopes for a break-up of the country. Bart De Wever, leader of the New Flemish Alliance (NVA), is set to become mayor of the northern city of Antwerp, Belgium’s economic heartland, after his party emerged as the largest one, ending about 90 years of socialist rule. …The strong result recorded by the Flemish nationalist is likely to have an impact across Europe, where the sovereign debt crisis, which has seen rich countries bail out poor ones, has revived separatist sentiment throughout the continent. Flanders, which is the most economically prosperous region of Belgium, has long resented financing the ailing economy of French-speaking Wallonia, and Sunday’s victory will strengthen its demand for self-rule. Lieven De Winter, a political scientist at Université Catholique de Louvain, said that Mr De Wever’s victory was a clear step forward for separatists who had long been campaigning for secession from the southern part of the country.

Purely as a matter of political drama, this is an interesting development. We saw the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia about 20 years ago. But we also saw a very painful breakup of Yugoslavia shortly thereafter.



Belgium’s divorce, if it happened, would be tranquil. But it would still be remarkable, particularly since it might encourage peaceful separatist movements in other regions of other nations.

I think this would be a welcome development for reasons I wrote about last month. Simply stated, the cause of liberty is best advanced by having a a large number of competing jurisdictions.

I’ve opined about this issue many times, usually from a fiscal policy perspective, explaining that governments are less likely to be oppressive when they know that people (or their money) can cross national borders.

Belgium definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European nations besides Denmark, France, and Finland. The top tax rate on personal income is a crippling 53.7 percent, second only the Sweden. And with a 34 percent rate, the corporate tax rate is very uncompetitive, behind only France.

Sadly, there’s little chance of reform under the status quo since the people in Wallonia view high tax rates as a tool for extracting money from their neighbors in Flanders. But if Belgium split up, it’s quite likely that both new nations would adopt better policy as a signal to international investors and entrepreneurs. Or maybe the new nations would implement better policy as part of a friendly rivalry with each other.

So three cheers for peaceful secession and divorce in Belgium. At least we know things can’t get worse.

P.S. Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but it is also the capital of the European Union. Don’t be surprised if it becomes some sort of independent federal city if Flanders and Wallonia become independent. Sort of like Washington, but worse. Why worse? Because even though Washington is akin to a city of parasites feasting off the productive energy of the rest of America, Brussels and the European Union are an even more odious cesspool of harmonization, bureaucratization, and centralization, richly deserving of attacks from right, left, and center.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...dea/page/full/

[acptulsa]

Yes. But the idea to me isn't divorcing oneself from one's neighbors, but divorcing oneself from the political muscle bought and paid for by banksters and other corporations.

If we can't get Washington cleaned out electorally, then this would certainly be a way to make it irrelevant. 'Excuse us, we'll be leaving now. Oh, and you don't mind if we just steal this Constitution before we go? You @#$%s aren't using it anyway...'

[Origanalist]

Yes. But the idea to me isn't divorcing oneself from one's neighbors, but divorcing oneself from the political muscle bought and paid for by banksters and other corporations.

If we can't get Washington cleaned out electorally, then this would certainly be a way to make it irrelevant. 'Excuse us, we'll be leaving now. Oh, and you don't mind if we just steal this Constitution before we go? You @#$%s aren't using it anyway...'

+ rep

[fisharmor]

'Excuse us, we'll be leaving now. Oh, and you don't mind if we just steal this Constitution before we go? You @#$%s aren't using it anyway...'

If you read the CSA constitution, this is precisely what happened here 150 years ago.
And then 600,000 people died.

Secession is as much a fantasy as assuming that we can get back to a constitutional system. As long as we're all living in fantasyland, my fantasyland is the one where the state simply doesn't exist.

[Travlyr]

If you read the CSA constitution, this is precisely what happened here 150 years ago.
And then 600,000 people died.

Secession is as much a fantasy as assuming that we can get back to a constitutional system. As long as we're all living in fantasyland, my fantasyland is the one where the state simply doesn't exist.

All we have to do, if we want to self-govern, is enforce this: Article VI. Clause 3.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

What is so difficult about that? They swear their allegiance to the Constitution. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire. It can be accomplished with bonds.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Do you think the UN will protect the state or region that secedes from the US? Protect it from being invaded or bombed by the US government.

[Travlyr]

Do you think the UN will protect the state or region that secedes from the US? Protect it from being invaded or bombed by the US government.

My personal take on the UN is that they are an illegitimate world government. They were not formed by representatives of the people, nations, or states, and a ratification process. They are more like the Mafia who simply claim authority they don't have because they have big bad weapons and an IMF.

[Matthew5]

All we have to do, if we want to self-govern, is enforce this: Article VI. Clause 3.


What is so difficult about that? They swear their allegiance to the Constitution. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire. It can be accomplished with bonds.

I do see your logic here. If Americans don't have enough fortitude to uphold the Constitution (and subsequently our representatives to it), then how the heck can we form a new nation?

[paulbot24]

'Excuse us, we'll be leaving now. Oh, and you don't mind if we just steal this Constitution before we go? You @#$%s aren't using it anyway...'

The parting shot heard around the world.

[phill4paul]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

[Travlyr]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

Absolutely agree.

[Origanalist]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......

[Travlyr]

That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......

There are too few people who actually understand how to do it at the moment. We are working on educating enough people but it takes a while.

[phill4paul]

That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

[Origanalist]

There are too few people who actually understand how to do it at the moment. We are working on educating enough people but it takes a while.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

I am for all of the above, but the threat of States actually seceding could only help. And the thought of States seceding in reality bothers me not one bit.

[phill4paul]

I am for all of the above, but the threat of States actually seceding could only help. And the thought of States seceding in reality bothers me not one bit.

No doubt. Don't get me wrong. If a state were to succeed I would move myself there in a heartbeat. I just feel that it would ultimately end in failure. The rest of America would collectively sigh as the federal troops rolled in. However, as states make incremental changes asserting their rights other states tend to follow suit.

[donnay]

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

Phill, I cannot give you anymore +rep. You are spot on! Tenth amendment is the way to go.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

Join the 10th Amendment Center if you think nullification is such a grand idea!

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

The way I see it, nullification should be tried first, and if not then secession if it absolutely must come to that.

[jmdrake]

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

Edit: And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVu...eature=related

[Travlyr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo

Edit: And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".

Excellent video. Nullification before Secession.

[Acala]

The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.

[Origanalist]

The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.

Beautifully put.

[Uriah]

The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.

Beautifully put.

Agreed. Agreed.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Daniel J. Mitchell


I’m not talking about secession in the United States, (Why not?)where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).

That's racist! If Person-X accuses a white-sucessionist of racism & not a black-secessionist then that's as racist as one can get because Person-X is presuming the motives & thought-processes of people based on the color of their skin!

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

You don't just give up on something because of one-time failure, may be this time the sucessionists will win!

Seriously, how long do you think it will take to libertanize the whole nation? Or will it EVER occur? Nobody, in all honesty, can offer definitive answers to these questions.

The most of the WHOLE WORLD believes in socialist-thievery, it has been that way for a long time, that's why we see it everywhere & not a lot is likely to change in the immediate future so the best option for liberty-minded people could be to flood a State (or more) & separate themselves from non-libertarians!

If there are no taxes & complete freedom for everyone then capital will literally flood such newly formed country (or countries) & it will become prosperous very quickly, & buying nukes for self-defense will soon be on the cards as well!

The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.

True!

[heavenlyboy34]

The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.

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.

Tie for thread winner. Mises would be proud.

[Czolgosz]

I figure about 20% of Humans are individualistic enough to want freedom, even fewer are activists, and fewer than that are warriors. A single State seceeding would be significant enough to draw a supportive free thinking base to its lands.


Secession is one of the better alternatives for freedom in our lifetime.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I figure about 20% of Humans are individualistic enough to want freedom, even fewer are activists, and fewer than that are warriors. A single State seceeding would be significant enough to draw a supportive free thinking base to its lands.


Secession is one of the better alternatives for freedom in our lifetime.

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!

[Origanalist]

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?

[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".