Don't you think that any institution doing the educating would be biased in presenting a topic that represents dissolution of the institution itself?
Maybe, but I don't think my school board was especially afraid of being disbanded. They didn't seem to show a lot of anxiety about it, anyway. Sure, we learned about the Confederacy and the fight to end slavery, which could be seen as anti-secessionist, but we also learned about the American Revolution, which could be seen as the opposite, and mostly the reconciliation that I was left with was that what mattered was the underlying reasons for the dispute. Mostly though, we focused on the objective facts of history with students left to draw their own moral conclusions.
My point is that the very acceptable reasoning behind having different laws in different areas applies to my position. What logical step have I taken that makes my position unacceptable?
What logical steps have you taken to make it acceptable? It seems to me that the burden is on you to show cause. You can't simply declare yourself a law unto yourself, or laws would be meaningless.
It's arbitrary, though, isn't it? Why should the federal government's laws apply to one area but not another? If something is right and good, then political boundaries should not stop it from being universally applied/enforced, according to anti-secession logic. All calls for a certain policy in one country should be calls for international law changes. Bernie supporters despise income inequality but only call for US policies that address the issue. Why?
I wouldn't call it arbitrary. Evolved, perhaps. The boundaries of a nation are the result of history. It might be ideal to have some universal government, and indeed there have been attempts to create at least laws that apply universally, but it's not an easy proposition.
Shouldn't the people that want the rule decide if the ineffectiveness of the rule would make it not worth enacting?
The ineffectiveness is a direct result of too local an application. My yard may be a gun-free zone, but that won't stop someone from invading my yard with guns against my wishes. Or shooting into my yard, for that matter.
If the people that run a university decide they want it to be a dry campus, isn't it up to them to weigh the costs and benefits of such a rule?
Partially. But if there's a liquor store across the street from campus, students are just going to walk over there and get alcohol, and make a mockery of the policy. This, by the way, describes my alma mater perfectly. It's a dry campus, but as a result of easily accessible alcohol near campus, it's one of the top party schools in the country.
They hold elections to give the illusion of consent. But there is no majority consent, especially if you count all the individuals who do not vote.
So work to make the elections more democratic. It's not like anarchy produces consent either.
Exactly. It would expose democracy for what it is: a small group of people unduly imposing their preferences on a large group of people.
As opposed to anarchy: An even smaller group of people imposing their preferences on a large group of people by force with no recourse possible.
And regarding the divisions that run through households--consensus is much easier to achieve than you might think. See my post to kmoney.
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.
You tell me how it would work, then. My (hypothetical) wife supports Drumpf. I support Bernie. We both have an ownership interest in our house. You think we should partition the house into Bernietown and Drumpfsleton? Do I have any recourse when Drumpfsleton decides to start test-firing artillery in their backyard?
Couldn't many of those reason be reapplied to a modern secession?
You tell me.
So... separate sovereign units are acceptable.
Yep.
Why not make more of them, especially if it is in the interest of the people that want to separate?
Because the government that's in place has a high degree of legitimacy, and there's little desire to divide it. It's impractical and unreasonable to let individuals break away as they see fit, for reasons discussed above.
I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to, but if it was a failure or morally wrong, then it would only support the position that laws shouldn't be over-applied to people that don't consent to the law in question.
I'm referring to the fact that we invaded Canada on several occasions with the intention of annexing them to the US. And we successfully invaded Mexico with the intention of annexing some of their territory.
