A Modest Proposal to End the Increasingly Violent Political Divide

[Newman]

Secession.

It's a scary word because of the way it has been branded through public education and the media. It's associated with the war between the states, and therefore slavery and racism, but it doesn't have to be.

Regions, states, localities, and even neighborhoods and individually owned property should be able to opt out of the federal government's jurisdiction, and there's no good argument against this claim. All arguments against can only appeal to a superficial desire to keep the states unified for the sake of being unified.

We already allow states to adopt their own policies. If each city can pass its own minimum wage, then why do we need a federal minimum? If each state can pass its own prohibitions against substances, then why do we need federal prohibitions? If each business can post its own gun policy, then why do we need federal gun laws?

Today, the people in this country are more divided than ever because of the presidential campaigns. It is plainly obvious that the Trump supporters won't change the minds of Sanders supporters. Cruz people will never bend to Clinton people. The animosity is only magnified by the fact that everybody must suffer the same president, even though there is no majority consensus. Most citizens will have to deal with a president that was not their first or second choice.

Why should the die-hard Clinton supporters make everyone, including the anti-establishment Left, the libertarians, and the Right, play along with their establishment Leftist policies and vision for the future if Clinton is elected? Why should the Rubio supporters force everyone to go along with establishment Right policies and vision for the future? Why not break up the nation into however many sovereign units it takes to achieve as much consensus as possible? Let the Hillary supporters have their policies! Let the Trump supporters have theirs! Just don't make anybody suffer the policies they don't want.

Is this a radical idea? No.

We already have seceded from a government we don't consent to, back in 1776. We are already a separate nation from Mexico and Canada. We don't make Canadians live under US law, except when they travel here. As Murray Rothbard pointed out:

"Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighbourhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?"

 

[Nick M]

The governors have to do it with the legislatures, otherwise you are nothing more than a domestic terrorist.

 

[Nihilo]

Is this a radical idea? No.

We already have seceded from a government we don't consent to, back in 1776.

Yes, and our forebears immediately enacted exactly what you suggest here and we ratified the Articles of Confederation and we found very shortly thereafter that while anti-federalism looks better on paper, federalism works better in practice, and voila, the Constitution, and we've all been living happily every after as a result.

There's nothing wrong with what's going on. Federalism with its powerful central government is the needed compromise to your idea to make it work, and it's been working like a charm and continues to.

 

[kmoney]

Is this a radical idea? No.

We already have seceded from a government we don't consent to, back in 1776. We are already a separate nation from Mexico and Canada. We don't make Canadians live under US law, except when they travel here. As Murray Rothbard pointed out:

How do you answer his question?

Secession may not be all that radical, but may not be very practical.

 

[Newman]

Yes, and our forebears immediately enacted exactly what you suggest here and we ratified the Articles of Confederation and we found very shortly thereafter that while anti-federalism looks better on paper, federalism works better in practice, and voila, the Constitution, and we've all been living happily every after as a result.

There's nothing wrong with what's going on. Federalism with its powerful central government is the needed compromise to your idea to make it work, and it's been working like a charm and continues to.

I strongly disagree with your "happily ever after" and "working like a charm".

Plus, could you explain how or why having Virginia and Pennsylvania as sovereign, independent units is materially different than having, say, France and Spain be independent? Lesotho and South Africa? The US and Canada?

Why can some areas be separate, but others not? Doesn't it seem totally arbitrary?

 

[Newman]

How do you answer his question?

Secession may not be all that radical, but may not be very practical.

Which question? Rothbard's? I say break down countries into as many units as it takes to achieve consensus within the unit.

I would say that all the impracticality comes from the negative association with the word secession. People hear it and think there must be another war to achieve it.

 

[Nihilo]

I strongly disagree with your "happily ever after" and "working like a charm".

OK, then maybe politics is in your future, if not present.

Plus, could you explain how or why having Virginia and Pennsylvania as sovereign, independent units is materially different than having, say, France and Spain be independent?

Because of the history of Virginia and Pennsylvania compared with the history of France and Spain. Europe is painfully slowly moving toward federalism anyway.

Lesotho and South Africa? The US and Canada?

Why can some areas be separate, but others not? Doesn't it seem totally arbitrary?

Are you arguing for a new world order?

 

[rocketman]

I strongly disagree with your "happily ever after" and "working like a charm".

I disagree with Nihilo's assertion as well but probably for a different reason. It does not work like a charm presently because the constitution has been corrupted by the very people that are sworn to protect & defend it. The answer is not to dissolve the nation into individual nation states and Nihilo is right, that was done after the the revolutionary war under the Articles of Confederation which were dissolved for the very reason that the states could not function effectively on a world stage as individual countries, thus the constitution was drafted for a central government. The answer to the problem is to elect a constitutional president, yes, a constitutional purist such as Ted Cruz, and then call an Article 5 convention of the states to allow the people to take back their government from the usurpers on the left & right that have corrupted our nation.

Plus, could you explain how or why having Virginia and Pennsylvania as sovereign, independent units is materially different than having, say, France and Spain be independent? Lesotho and South Africa? The US and Canada?

Why can some areas be separate, but others not? Doesn't it seem totally arbitrary?

The states are already supposed to be separate entities united under the constitution Newman, the answer is not to trash the constitution or the nation to fix the corruption, if your house has termites you don't burn it down, you get an exterminator, then fix the damage. This is our country, our government, it is high time people wake up, take seriously their liberty and take it back from the usurpers, we have the power to do so but, it will take resolve & don't expect the progressive marxist/socialist crowd on the left or right to go quietly. There is only one constitutional conservative in this race that has a record of opposing the status quo and if we elect a pseudo populist or a marxist this go around it may be too late to save our nation, we are at the crossroads staring into the abyss right now, the future is unknown if we the people don't take back our government...yes, our government, not theirs.

 

[patrick jane]

There is only one constitutional conservative in this race that has a record of opposing the status quo .

Who ? Cruz

 

[Nick M]

if your house has termites you don't burn it down, you get an exterminator, then fix the damage.

Nor can you just raise a ceiling for more space.

 

[kmoney]

Which question? Rothbard's? I say break down countries into as many units as it takes to achieve consensus within the unit.

I would say that all the impracticality comes from the negative association with the word secession. People hear it and think there must be another war to achieve it.

Yes I meant Rothbard's question.

How much agreement is required for 'consensus' though? You're never going to get complete consensus so how much is good enough?
And there is always going to be flux. Even if you could snap your fingers and turn the US into a set of sovereign units that each has consensus how long will it last? People change. Children are born that may not agree with their parents. New issues arise. Consensus ends. Will people constantly be moving to different states or breaking the sovereign states into smaller units? I don't disagree with your point that how we choose to make states is somewhat arbitrary but I don't think achieving consensus is a practical goal.

And what rocketman is saying about returning to where we once were with more power within the states might be a big step toward what you're talking about.

 

[Newman]

OK, then maybe politics is in your future, if not present.

Why?

Because of the history of Virginia and Pennsylvania compared with the history of France and Spain. Europe is painfully slowly moving toward federalism anyway.

Why should history determine future political boundaries? Shouldn't it be based on the will of the people within the jurisdiction(s) in question?

Are you arguing for a new world order?

You mean like one world government? No. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Newman]

I disagree with Nihilo's assertion as well but probably for a different reason. It does not work like a charm presently because the constitution has been corrupted by the very people that are sworn to protect & defend it. The answer is not to dissolve the nation into individual nation states and Nihilo is right, that was done after the the revolutionary war under the Articles of Confederation which were dissolved for the very reason that the states could not function effectively on a world stage as individual countries, thus the constitution was drafted for a central government. The answer to the problem is to elect a constitutional president, yes, a constitutional purist such as Ted Cruz, and then call an Article 5 convention of the states to allow the people to take back their government from the usurpers on the left & right that have corrupted our nation.

Two things:
1. What about all the people that don't want what you called a "constitutional president"? Why should they have to have a leader they don't want? Why not let them have there own fascist or king or socialist utopia like they want?
2. Who cares what the Constitution says? Nobody alive today signed it. Besides, as Spooner said, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

The states are already supposed to be separate entities united under the constitution Newman, the answer is not to trash the constitution or the nation to fix the corruption, if your house has termites you don't burn it down, you get an exterminator, then fix the damage. This is our country, our government, it is high time people wake up, take seriously their liberty and take it back from the usurpers, we have the power to do so but, it will take resolve & don't expect the progressive marxist/socialist crowd on the left or right to go quietly. There is only one constitutional conservative in this race that has a record of opposing the status quo and if we elect a pseudo populist or a marxist this go around it may be too late to save our nation, we are at the crossroads staring into the abyss right now, the future is unknown if we the people don't take back our government...yes, our government, not theirs.

Don't think about it as a termite infestation, but too many people crammed in the same house. One person wants to repaint the living room red. Another wants to keep it the way it is. They are all sharing the same pantry, and they all have different ideas on how the food should be distributed, who does the grocery shopping, who pays for the groceries, and how much of the group budget should even go to purchasing food. Two people want one person's chair, and so they steal it from him. Everybody wants to watch different TV shows, but theirs only one TV.

What's the solution? Exterminate the other people? That seems immoral. Convince them that all the things you want are what everybody should want? We've tried this and it doesn't work. Separate, and have everybody go buy their own place so they can do what they want? Seems logical and practical.

 

[Newman]

Yes I meant Rothbard's question.

How much agreement is required for 'consensus' though? You're never going to get complete consensus so how much is good enough?
And there is always going to be flux. Even if you could snap your fingers and turn the US into a set of sovereign units that each has consensus how long will it last? People change. Children are born that may not agree with their parents. New issues arise. Consensus ends. Will people constantly be moving to different states or breaking the sovereign states into smaller units? I don't disagree with your point that how we choose to make states is somewhat arbitrary but I don't think achieving consensus is a practical goal.

And what rocketman is saying about returning to where we once were with more power within the states might be a big step toward what you're talking about.

That would be a good step.

I'm shooting for 100% consensus.

I think consensus is a lot easier than you think it is. You have consensus with everyone involved in any movie theater showing. Everybody agreed to watch the same movie and paid the same price. Whenever you enter any business, you agree to follow the property owners' rules. There are thousands of people at my university, all of whom have agreed to follow the same rules while on campus, pay (or get paid) a certain amount, and many other points of agreement.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Secession.

It's a scary word because of the way it has been branded through public education and the media. It's associated with the war between the states, and therefore slavery and racism, but it doesn't have to be.

Regions, states, localities, and even neighborhoods and individually owned property should be able to opt out of the federal government's jurisdiction, and there's no good argument against this claim...

I can think of one right off hand: military protection. Let's say that Communist China for some reason wants to invade your neighborhood. Should you have a standing army equipped with tanks, anti aircraft missiles and other weapons that a national standing army would have access to?

How about currency? When you wander out into the world to buy lets say groceries from another "neighborhood", would your currency be the same as theirs?

How about roads? Your neighborhood road system would come to a stop at the end of your neighborhood, what would you have to do in order to enter the next neighborhood and the one after that?

Environmental protection: Let's say that the neighborhood next to yours decides to build steel mills without taking into consideration concerns for air quality. How would that be handled?

I'm just warming up Newman.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...2. Who cares what the Constitution says? Nobody alive today signed it. Besides, as Spooner said, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

You brought up Lysander Spooner's name in my "The Perversion of Libertarianism" thread (which it appears no one wants to play in any longer).

Here's an interesting article on Lysander Spooner:

The Ideas of Lysander Spooner — Libertarian or libertarian socialist?

"In summary, Spooner’s ideas seem to fall somewhere between those of modern Libertarians and Socialists. One wonders whether Spooner has written much on the industrial revolution, already well under way during his youth. In particular, what are his views on wage labor and the employer-employee relationship?"
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...-spooner-libertarian-or-libertarian-socialist

 

[Newman]

I can think of one right off hand: military protection. Let's say that Communist China for some reason wants to invade your neighborhood. Should you have a standing army equipped with tanks, anti aircraft missiles and other weapons that a national standing army would have access to?

Great questions, aCW!

Why does a country have to be large to be able to defend itself? Aren't there small countries that have persisted without any issue protecting themselves? Why would Communist China want to invade? Do you think that US foreign policy has made us more likely to be attacked? Wouldn't smaller countries that mind their own business not have an issue along these lines?

How about currency? When you wander out into the world to buy lets say groceries from another "neighborhood", would your currency be the same as theirs?

This would sort itself out. With private money issuers, the money that best suits the demands of the people that use it will become the common money. Gold functioned in a similar way before the current age of fiat money.

How about roads? Your neighborhood road system would come to a stop at the end of your neighborhood, what would you have to do in order to enter the next neighborhood and the one after that?

You can drive into Canada, right? Counties and states are responsible for their own roads and you can drive from one to the other without any issue.

Environmental protection: Let's say that the neighborhood next to yours decides to build steel mills without taking into consideration concerns for air quality. How would that be handled?

Great question. I think that if unwanted particulates from a steel mill find their way onto somebody else's property, then that counts as trespassing, and the two parties can settle, even in a court if need be.

I'm just warming up Newman.

Thanks for the great questions.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I can think of one right off hand: military protection. Let's say that Communist China for some reason wants to invade your neighborhood. Should you have a standing army equipped with tanks, anti aircraft missiles and other weapons that a national standing army would have access to?
Great questions, aCW!

Why does a country have to be large to be able to defend itself?

First of all, what establishes a "country"? In your OP you're implying that even a privately owned house would qualify as a country.

Regions, states, localities, and even neighborhoods and individually owned property should be able to opt out of the federal government's jurisdiction...

Aren't there small countries that have persisted without any issue protecting themselves?

I'll wait for your answer to my above question.

Why would Communist China want to invade?

The motive is irrelevant. The point is how would a sovereign neighborhood thwart off an attack by a large country?

Do you think that US foreign policy has made us more likely to be attacked? Wouldn't smaller countries that mind their own business not have an issue along these lines?

I would love to talk about the history of Muslim aggression throughout the world. In fact, I can share stories about Islam imperialism before the United States even existed.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How about currency? When you wander out into the world to buy lets say groceries from another "neighborhood", would your currency be the same as theirs?

This would sort itself out. With private money issuers, the money that best suits the demands of the people that use it will become the common money. Gold functioned in a similar way before the current age of fiat money.

What if neighborhood "A" didn't back their currency with solid assets, what would neighborhood "B" which does do then?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How about roads? Your neighborhood road system would come to a stop at the end of your neighborhood, what would you have to do in order to enter the next neighborhood and the one after that?

You can drive into Canada, right? Counties and states are responsible for their own roads and you can drive from one to the other without any issue.

We're talking about neighborhoods right now. You're talking about public roads that are funded by taxes. You want to do away with that type of government don't you Newman?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Environmental protection: Let's say that the neighborhood next to yours decides to build steel mills without taking into consideration concerns for air quality. How would that be handled?

Great question. I think that if unwanted particulates from a steel mill find their way onto somebody else's property, then that counts as trespassing, and the two parties can settle, even in a court if need be.

So Libertarian property rights aren't all that they're made up to be (irresponsible behavior does effect ones neighbor).

Would there be regulations that prevent further polluting, and how would that be enforced from neighborhood to neighborhood?

 

[rexlunae]

It's a scary word because of the way it has been branded through public education and the media.

Right. It was practically all we talked about in public education. lain:

It's associated with the war between the states, and therefore slavery and racism, but it doesn't have to be.

I think the main reason it's maintained that association is that since the Civil War, it's been mostly a concept entertained by conservatives in response to liberal proposals and politicians. But it's not inherently bad, I agree there.

Regions, states, localities, and even neighborhoods and individually owned property should be able to opt out of the federal government's jurisdiction, and there's no good argument against this claim. All arguments against can only appeal to a superficial desire to keep the states unified for the sake of being unified.

In other words, anarchy on demand.

We already allow states to adopt their own policies.

Right. Specifically, our laws allow that. Those laws that you're looking to ignore.

If each city can pass its own minimum wage, then why do we need a federal minimum?

Because the federal government's mandate is to set national policy rather than local policy. In part, the federal government's jurisdiction is a check on the policy agenda of a state or local government that may choose to prioritize industrial interests over workers. One isn't really a substitute for the other, even if they are partially overlapping.

If each business can post its own gun policy, then why do we need federal gun laws?

Because laws that only apply for a few feet are less effective than laws that apply over a large jurisdiction.

Today, the people in this country are more divided than ever because of the presidential campaigns. It is plainly obvious that the Trump supporters won't change the minds of Sanders supporters. Cruz people will never bend to Clinton people. The animosity is only magnified by the fact that everybody must suffer the same president, even though there is no majority consensus. Most citizens will have to deal with a president that was not their first or second choice.

We hold elections so that we don't have to fight in the streets. If you think that the solution is secession, why do you suppose the Germans, who already don't live in this country, and are further from it than any hypothetical Republic of Maryland ever will be, are getting nervous about the rhetoric of Drumpf's campaign?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-europe-election/472113/

Why should the die-hard Clinton supporters make everyone, including the anti-establishment Left, the libertarians, and the Right, play along with their establishment Leftist policies and vision for the future if Clinton is elected?

Because that's the bargain we're all in for. When your candidate wins, you get what you want. When they don't, you get what someone else wanted instead. It was true in 1860, and its true now. Aside from that, these divisions aren't even geographically sorted. They run through households.

Sore-losers' secessions would make a mockery of democracy.

...the Rubio supporters...

Who?

Is this a radical idea? No.

Yes.

We already have seceded from a government we don't consent to, back in 1776.

And we had a clearly stated list of causes. Generally speaking, history has judged them valid.

We are already a separate nation from Mexico and Canada.

Yeah. So...

We don't make Canadians live under US law, except when they travel here.

We tried a few times.

 

[Newman]

First of all, what establishes a "country"? In your OP you're implying that even a privately owned house would qualify as a country.

A country is a sovereign unit. The Vatican is what, 100 acres?

If somebody wants their house to be their own country, I wouldn't stop them, but there are some benefits to being in a community of people that have the same values as you. They would be missing out on this.

The motive is irrelevant. The point is how would a sovereign neighborhood thwart off an attack by a large country?

We can maintain the irrelevancy of the motive for the sake of argument. I'm ok with that. But I do think that if we are talking about the practicality of small political units, it should be clear that the nation-building, empire-expanding, interventionist type foreign policy would probably go away.

What if neighborhood "A" didn't back their currency with solid assets, what would neighborhood "B" which does do then?

If the value of A dollars decreases relative to B dollars, then A would trade at a discount. Prices would have to be denominated in two moneys, or people would exchange their money for the other money before shopping in the other neighborhood. To the extent that people shop in both neighborhoods, prices in terms of A dollars would increase, especially relative to B dollars. Individuals, even in neighborhood A would start to request to be paid in B dollars, further driving down demand for A dollars, until A dollars become worthless. Everybody uses B dollars.

This is called Gresham's Law--good money drives out bad money.

We're talking about neighborhoods right now. You're talking about public roads that are funded by taxes. You want to do away with that type of government don't you Newman?

I'm ok with collectively funded projects, as long as it's all voluntary. All companies traded publicly are collectively funded, right? When guests chip in for a pizza to be delivered for movie night, this is collective funding.

Or think about it this way: would anybody want to buy a house that is disconnected to the road system? Home builders therefore have an incentive to build houses on roads that are connected by road to workplaces, stores, major highways, etc. If they run out of road to build houses on, they can build roads to make more houses.

Business also have an incentive to be connected by road to their customers.

So Libertarian property rights aren't all that they're made up to be (irresponsible behavior does effect ones neighbor).

Uhh, this would be a violation of so-called "libertarian property rights". Just like theft, vandalism, murder, fraud, etc.

Would there be regulations that prevent further polluting, and how would that be enforced from neighborhood to neighborhood?

I don't know if you could call it a regulation, but polluting would have a price.
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution#11