The Right To Secede

[osan]

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-right-to-secede.html




In recent years, many who ID as "liberty lovers" have been making much speak of the idea of secession. The notion, while in itself valid, has to my knowledge not been discussed as to the particulars insofar as what it means in practice. What does it mean to "secede"? As always, the dictionary should be our first friend in establishing the semantic baseline from which we shall operate.

Worcester's Dictionary of 1840:

SECEDE: n. To withdraw from union of fellowship in society, or in any matter or business; to separate oneself; to retire.

Webster's of 1828:

SECE'DE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.]


To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733.

Oxford Etymological Dictionary:

secede (v.)
1702, "to leave one's companions," from Latin secedere "go away, withdraw, separate; rebel, revolt," from se- "apart" + cedere "to go"). Sense of "to withdraw from a political or religious alliance of union" is recorded from 1755, originally especially in reference to the Church of Scotland. Related: Seceded; seceding; seceder.

Withdrawal is the essences of secession. The freedom to withdraw remains a central and basic human right; it is one of the marks of a Freeman. This speaks to the right to freedom of association, as recognized, honored, and protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.


As Freemen, we are each entitled to reserve our individual right to associate as we see fit. We are free to withdraw from society as we may choose, for whatever reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man, regardless of his claim of purport, holds the authority to force upon another associations against the other's will.


Secession is not only the right of a population, though it is that also; it is most truly the right of the individual to associate as he will, which implies association in all its forms. This includes his choice to secede from government and its interferences in his life, regardless of the manner, degree, or justifications given them.


Those who presume to lord over the rest have nothing valid upon which to hang their assertions in the matter of their claims to authority, regardless of the premise, which perforce is always false precisely because such claims are always lies. The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another. Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another. Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.


Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature. Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question. As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive. In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.


It is my hope that people will come to the better understanding of secession, embrace it, and work toward making it the rule, rather than the high-risk exception it is today.


Thanks once again, be well, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

[osan]

In recent years, many who ID as "liberty lovers" have been making much speak of the idea of secession. The notion, while in itself valid, has to my knowledge not been discussed as to the particulars insofar as what it means in practice. What does it mean to "secede"? As always, the dictionary should be our first friend in establishing the semantic baseline from which we shall operate.

Worcester's Dictionary of 1840:

SECEDE: n. To withdraw from union of fellowship in society, or in any matter or business; to separate oneself; to retire.

Webster's of 1828:

SECE'DE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.]

To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733.

Oxford Etymological Dictionary:

secede (v.)
1702, "to leave one's companions," from Latin secedere "go away, withdraw, separate; rebel, revolt," from se- "apart" + cedere "to go"). Sense of "to withdraw from a political or religious alliance of union" is recorded from 1755, originally especially in reference to the Church of Scotland. Related: Seceded; seceding; seceder.

Withdrawal is the essences of secession. The freedom to withdraw remains a central and basic human right; it is one of the marks of a Freeman. This speaks to the right to freedom of association, as recognized, honored, and protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.

As Freemen, we are each entitled to reserve our individual right to associate as we see fit. We are free to withdraw from society as we may choose, for whatever reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all. No man, regardless of his claim of purport, holds the authority to force upon another associations against the other's will.

Secession is not only the right of a population, though it is that also; it is most truly the right of the individual to associate as he will, which implies association in all its forms. This includes his choice to secede from government and its interferences in his life, regardless of the manner, degree, or justifications given them.

Those who presume to lord over the rest have nothing valid upon which to hang their assertions in the matter of their claims to authority, regardless of the premise, which perforce is always false precisely because such claims are always lies. The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another. Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another. Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.

Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature. Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question. As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive. In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.

It is my hope that people will come to the better understanding of secession, embrace it, and work toward making it the rule, rather than the high-risk exception it is today.

Thanks once again, be well, and as always, please accept my best wishes.

[Anti Federalist]

In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.

Individualist stumbling point here...if three men combine together to build a bridge, and suddenly one decides to build a barn instead, clearly his choice must, by virtue of the task at hand, be nullified.

In other words, sometimes things must be done collectively to be accomplished at all.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course, that said, the right to secede and withdraw is not questioned.

[Anti Globalist]

I'm all for states seceding from the country. I just don't know if its ever going to happen again.

[osan]

Individualist stumbling point here...if three men combine together to build a bridge, and suddenly one decides to build a barn instead, clearly his choice must, by virtue of the task at hand, be nullified.

In other words, sometimes things must be done collectively to be accomplished at all.

But that wasn't what I wrote. I agree with you - a contract is a binding agreement. My point has a good analogy in the old saw about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner: rights are not additive. The rights of the two do not supersede those of the third. One of the greatest problems with humans is that they do not concur. Why? Because they are rotten sumbitches who want what they want, talk a big talk, yet don't walk a step of it when to do so is inconvenient.

[osan]

I'm all for states seceding from the country. I just don't know if its ever going to happen again.

If the individual is able to secede, then the issue of states' right to secede becomes irrelevant.

[r3volution 3.0]

An unlimited right of secession (i.e. down to the individual) means anarchy.

If you recognize that anarchy is undesirable, you can only support a limited right of secession.

[otherone]

An unlimited right of secession (i.e. down to the individual) means anarchy.

If you recognize that anarchy is undesirable, you can only support a limited right of secession.

The inverse is true as well.

[Sonny Tufts]

The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another. Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another. Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.

Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature. Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question. As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive. In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.

Sounds like you're gonna need a lot of authority, since someone or some group is going to have to determine what "bona fide crimes" are, whether someone has committed one and, if so, what his punishment will be. But it seems you're giving the accused a veto power, since the concurring opinions of everyone else won't trump his "right" to negate any one of these determinations.

[osan]

Sounds like you're gonna need a lot of authority, since someone or some group is going to have to determine what "bona fide crimes" are, whether someone has committed one and, if so, what his punishment will be. But it seems you're giving the accused a veto power, since the concurring opinions of everyone else won't trump his "right" to negate any one of these determinations.

Your point it well taken and had not escaped my notice in the past. It is, however, the product of false assumptions, the primary one being that justice is more important than freedom.

There are no guarantees in life. $#@! happens, and sometimes there is no recompense. I am of the school, the mind of which prefers every criminal go free than a single innocent be falsely punished.

So tell us, which would you prefer?

The veto power of the individual is preferable to the tyranny of the wad, at least to me. The world is not going to be perfect by any far stretch, no matter what one does. I therefore prefer the imperfection of freedom to that of tyranny.

You, of course, may choose to see it differently.

[osan]

An unlimited right of secession (i.e. down to the individual) means anarchy.

And so what if it does?

If you recognize that anarchy is undesirable,

Clever wording, tacitly assuming facts not in evidence to support your unsupported position. Nicely done, save that it fails.

you can only support a limited right of secession.

I support full secession. I also support full accountability of each sovereign to his fellows insofar as his actions may impact their equal rights.

This isn't rocket surgery. It is all so very simple, if not always easy to put into practice. The problem with people is that they want easy, and they also want guarantees, which are lies when they cannot possibly be delivered as promised.

If you want to be free, then you have to accept secession at the individual level. Anything less is something other than freedom; it is pretty slavery. It matters no whit how expansive the cage, how beautifully appointed with guilding and other bright and shiny bits; it remains a cell and its occupants not free.

Freedom is at least as scary as it is exhilarating, which is precisely why so many people - including you, it would appear - have no interest in it. You want pretty slavery. You want all the benefits of freedom, as you see them, without any of the costs, risks, and other burdens of getting and maintaining it. That can boil down only to pretty slavery and nothing other than that. You want to be a slave with just enough freedom such that you are able to comfortably lie to yourself by claiming to be free. So sorry, but that is epic FAIL. It is FAIL-plex, FAIL^FAIL, ultra-FAIL, ultimate-FAIL, FAIL beyond the ability to measure because numbers that large do not exist. It's a whole heapin', steaming pile of FAIL.

Did I mention FAIL?

[bv3]

The phrase, "The free person has justice," is?
a.Tautological
b.Pleonastic
c.Repetitive

[osan]

The phrase, "The free person has justice," is?
a.Tautological
b.Pleonastic
c.Repetitive

I see what you're doing, but it is simplistic. Turns on the sense of "justice".`

[bv3]

And so what if it does?



Clever wording, tacitly assuming facts not in evidence to support your unsupported position. Nicely done, save that it fails.



I support full secession. I also support full accountability of each sovereign to his fellows insofar as his actions may impact their equal rights.

This isn't rocket surgery. It is all so very simple, if not always easy to put into practice. The problem with people is that they want easy, and they also want guarantees, which are lies when they cannot possibly be delivered as promised.

If you want to be free, then you have to accept secession at the individual level. Anything less is something other than freedom; it is pretty slavery. It matters no whit how expansive the cage, how beautifully appointed with guilding and other bright and shiny bits; it remains a cell and its occupants not free.

Freedom is at least as scary as it is exhilarating, which is precisely why so many people - including you, it would appear - have no interest in it. You want pretty slavery. You want all the benefits of freedom, as you see them, without any of the costs, risks, and other burdens of getting and maintaining it. That can boil down only to pretty slavery and nothing other than that. You want to be a slave with just enough freedom such that you are able to comfortably lie to yourself by claiming to be free. So sorry, but that is epic FAIL. It is FAIL-plex, FAIL^FAIL, ultra-FAIL, ultimate-FAIL, FAIL beyond the ability to measure because numbers that large do not exist. It's a whole heapin', steaming pile of FAIL.

Did I mention FAIL?

I see what you're doing, but it is simplistic. Turns on the sense of "justice".`

Precisely, would rather have that sense be on than off. All meagre attempts at wit aside, what would you do with the existing body of common law? I didn't get the sense that you wanted to extirpate it. As far as objections re 'bona-fide' crimes, the distinction does not need to be made by a legislative body of any kind since it already exists in the legal theories of malum in se and malum prohibitum. The former extends to acts that are wrong in-and-of themselves, which I understand to mean crimes that create a victim. The latter are acts that are wrong because they are prohibited, as in: one is prohibited from not paying their taxes, crimes that do not create a victim. (although, and interestingly, one might say that they are being compelled by prohibitionary law to become a victim. Frederick Douglas thought so.). It is wrong to buy alcohol outside of the racket, because it is prohibited.

So, crimes of fraud and violence wouldn't need some powerful body to determine their existence, since their existence is already established in the common law that runs back how many centuries? To Moses?

Prohibiting a thing because it is wrong is very different than a thing being wrong because it is prohibited. The Bill of Rights, thusly, even though enacted, is in harmony with the common law. Other forms of enacted law literally contradict common law. anyways, good post Osan.

[jmdrake]

https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.co...to-secede.html

Your right to secede is directly proportional to your ability to defend your secession. Had Washington and his cohorts lost they would have been hung as traitors.

[idiom]

The individuals right to secede is recognized generally, (UDHR article 15) but not that of small regions of a nation. However Brexit isn't being challenged militarily, and probably a Scottish secession wouldn't be either.

If California or Texas really really wanted to up sticks they might get away with it. Hawaii really wants to but doesn't have a shot in hell.

[osan]

Precisely, would rather have that sense be on than off.

Still speaking in vagaries. "Justice" may have any of several senses. You have not been clear in yours, leaving your statement essentially meaningless.

hat would you do with the existing body of common law?

Other than the three tenets, I would burn it to the waterline. Those tenets state:

1. Be goof for your word
2. Do no harm
3. Make whole those whom you damage.

I didn't get the sense that you wanted to extirpate it.

Au contraire. Case law is tainted with all manner of bad decisions. Rather than sift through centuries of cases, I say toss it all to the winds and start again. OTOH, I am no fan of case law and would see it put in the dustbin where it belongs. Cases must be decided upon principles and not other cases. If an extant case is tainted and a judge renders an opinion based on it, he carries forward the sins of the past. This is purest folly, of course, whereas judging based on one's understanding of principles is no riskier than choosing flawed case law as ones basis.

This places onus squarely on the shoulders of judges and attorneys alike, requiring they fully and squarely understand the principles of justice and how to apply them properly.

As far as objections re 'bona-fide' crimes, the distinction does not need to be made by a legislative body of any kind since it already exists in the legal theories of malum in se and malum prohibitum.

If I read you correctly, we agree. Indeed, I object to legislative bodies in the extreme. There is no basis for their authority in even the least measure, for their very existence suggests a body of men to lord over the rest. The tenets of Common Law are all that is needed to dispense proper justice, given the competence and integrity of those administering.

The former extends to acts that are wrong in-and-of themselves, which I understand to mean crimes that create a victim.

You understand correctly.

The latter are acts that are wrong because they are prohibited, as in: one is prohibited from not paying their taxes, crimes that do not create a victim. (although, and interestingly, one might say that they are being compelled by prohibitionary law to become a victim. Frederick Douglas thought so.). It is wrong to buy alcohol outside of the racket, because it is prohibited.

They are not, in fact, wrong; they are only prohibited, whether by flawed belief, or some other corruption of rectitude.

So, crimes of fraud and violence wouldn't need some powerful body to determine their existence, since their existence is already established in the common law that runs back how many centuries? To Moses?

Forget case law. Principle is the only valid basis for judging.

[Stratovarious]

The individuals right to secede is recognized generally, (UDHR article 15) but not that of small regions of a nation. However Brexit isn't being challenged militarily, and probably a Scottish secession wouldn't be either.

If California or Texas really really wanted to up sticks they might get away with it. Hawaii really wants to but doesn't have a shot in hell.

Hawaii has one chance actually;
If a new string of Islands pop up in the region that can support Military Bases , we might consider.

[bv3]

"The reports of a given jurisdiction in the course of a generation take up pretty much the whole body of the law, and restate it from the present point of view. We could reconstruct the corpus from them if all that went before were burned." - Oliver Wendell Holmes The Path of the Law

I've always understood case law (ideally, and if I understand it at) to be the interface between abstract legal principles and real-life occurrences. Sorry, I got a dose of post modernism at college--case law is the application of abstract legal principles to actual incidents.