Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Secession



I am uncertain as to what libertarianism means if it does not allow for individuals to exercise control over their life and property.  This would inherently mean – to the extent possible in an imperfect world – that individuals would be free to choose from any available option of governance / governing structures, or create their own if they are able.

“If they are able”…of course, we know that those who currently govern such free thinkers will not be very agreeable to letting their cattle go free….

We also know that more choices in governance units increase the possibility that each individual finds one closer to his choosing.  Simple math.

Which kind of already answers the question regarding a libertarian view on secession.  You can stop here if you like.
-----------------------------
Over the course of recorded history, borders have come and borders have gone; the number of governance units has ebbed and flowed – sometimes more, sometimes less.

In many ways, the world has moved toward the “sometimes less” end of the spectrum over the course of many centuries.  But this has changed recently: the USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia – out of these three, now perhaps twenty.  And it remains in flux: Brexit being a key event; the clear sentiment of many Americans and Europeans to withdraw from globalism being another.

One thing seems clear – when we move toward the “sometimes less” end of the spectrum, we move toward ever-greater centralization, ever-fewer options to find a governance unit under which one might find reasonable liberty, governance conditions closer to their ideal.  Instead, we move toward an all-powerful, one-world, state.

Some like to think that such an outcome is the best guarantor of liberty.  Such as these are amongst the most naïve or wishful (or devious) among us.

I suggest that reason leans the other way: more choice equals more possibilities for each individual to find the liberty of his choosing.  After all, liberty (the non-aggression principle) only offers a singular negative right; it says nothing of the type of society in which one might choose to live.

Hence, it strikes me that the libertarian must support every movement toward decentralization.  After all, who are you to say what another finds agreeable in terms of the type of society and under what property arrangements in which the other might choose to live?  Value is subjective, and central planning does not fall within the libertarian tent.
-----------------------------
So, Catalunya held a vote.  In my earlier post on this topic, I contrasted my views with that of a libertarian who suggested that this vote should not be supported; that if Catalunya wished to secede, the region should get permission from the entity (Spain) from which it wanted to secede.

I promised this subsequent post – in order to assess the nature of Spain’s response.

From the New York Times:

Catalonia’s defiant attempt to stage an independence referendum descended into chaos on Sunday, with hundreds injured in clashes with police…

An outcome that was promised and knowable.

National police officers in riot gear, sent by the central government in Madrid from other parts of Spain, used rubber bullets and truncheons in some places as they fanned out across Catalonia…

More than 750 people were injured in the crackdown…

Now…what were the people doing other than peacefully voting?  Why would the state want to physically assault those who chose this method of raising their voices?  Is there something libertarian about this state action?

“You simply can’t use violence against people who just want to vote.”

So says Mario Pulpillo, age 54.  As do I.

It was just a vote, one of the few peaceful ways possible for people to voice their opinion.  Why would libertarians oppose this (other than, I guess, those who are philosophically opposed to voting)?  Why would libertarians oppose this, knowing the government’s methods of dealing with those with whom the government disagrees?

The Madrid government, with the backing of Spanish courts, had declared the referendum unconstitutional and ordered the vote suspended.

What is libertarian about this position, the position taken by the Madrid government?


Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, at a news conference Sunday evening, characterized the police actions as a proper and measured response to the acts of secessionists.

Of course he would say this.  Knowing what libertarians should know about the actions that a determined government would take against its enemies, why would any libertarian advocate against this vote?

“If there is something to conclude from today, it is the strength of Spain’s democratic state,” Mr. Rajoy said on Sunday.

Wait a minute…if a state felt strong in its democracy, why would it fear a vote?  This is not the action of the strong and confident; it is the action of the weak and fearful.

And…so you don’t think I lose sight of my purpose…why, if the vote comes out for secession, does a libertarian feel justified in telling those who want a different form of control over their life and property that they cannot have it?  Because the only way to prevent this is…well, ask Rajoy.  He will show you.

The Catalan vote has been watched with rising trepidation — and no sign of support — by a European Union wary of stoking forces of fragmentation already tugging at the bloc and many member states…

Do you think the EU supports secession?  Do you think the EU favors that each individual has more control over his life and property, in the manner of his own choosing?  Do you think the decentralization away from Brussels would increase the possibilities of control over life and property for those living in Europe?

There is good news to be found:

“Today, the Spanish state has lost a lot more than it had already lost, and Catalan citizens have won a lot more than they had won until now,” [the leader of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont] said.

Although in a very different manner, I find this reaction by Rajoy to have the same effect as Hillary’s “the deplorables” comment: it really energizes those who were on the fence to get off the fence and on to the other side.

Some additional thoughts from The Washington Post:

Soon after the polls opened, Spanish riot police smashed into the voting centers, their raids caught on mobile phone cameras that showed them whipping ordinary citizens with rubber truncheons and dragging them away by their hair.

A predictable outcome.

In a television address late Sunday, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said there was no real independence vote in Catalonia. He said a majority of the residents of the region had not even showed up at the polls.

Interesting.  The government said beforehand that the vote wouldn’t count; the government said they will send in the police to block the vote.  People are watching the police brutality on television or social media and decide to stay home and stay safe.  Then the government says because enough people didn’t show up at the polls, the vote doesn’t count.

In any case, who says that every single person in a jurisdiction must vote for the vote to be valid?
-----------------------------
That’s enough of that.  In my previous post, I offered a more thorough philosophical case for secession as the method by which libertarianism can be better realized in this world.  I offer one snippet:

Perfect libertarianism will be achieved when every single individual has complete, autonomous authority over every decision regarding his life and property – as long as he does not initiate aggression against another in exercising this authority.  This suggests something like seven billion political jurisdictions. 

As I don’t expect imperfect humans will ever achieve “perfect” (and I’m not even really a fan of “perfect” on this topic), I offered:

How do we get from something less than 200 jurisdictions today to something closer to a few thousand (or 1.5 billion or 7 billion) without getting to 201 first?

This is what I don’t get.  Libertarians want freedom in their person and property.  We cannot get from something less than 200 governance units to something moving toward 7 billion governance units without passing through 201, can we?  Is there some new, new, math of which I am unfamiliar?

The number of governance units has ebbed and flowed throughout recorded history; this will be the case in the future, for as long as humans are in that future.  The more governance units, the more options for each of us to find a home.

If libertarians do not support that the number increases, inherently they are supporting that the number decreases.  I know there are some libertarians who favor one-world government.  Libertarians such as these leave me speechless.
-----------------------------
In this post, I offer the knowable response of a government that wishes to crush any peaceful (and I emphasize peaceful) movement by the people for decentralization.  Given that the government’s response is knowable – a complete violation of the NAP – how can any libertarian desire this?
-----------------------------
What about those in Calalunya who do not support this newly formed secessionist state? 

There is the story of Val d’Aran.  It is to be found in the far northwest of Catalunya and one of only two provinces in Spain that lies north of the Pyranees.

The entire population of the valley is about 7,130 (1996). As of 2001, most people in Aran spoke Spanish (38.78%) as their native language, followed by Aranese (34.19%), then Catalan (19.45%) with 7.56% having a different native language.


Val d’Aran[‘s]…voters firmly rejected the independence movement, favoring instead regionalist and unionist parties.

Of course, the libertarian answer is to support the next vote on secession, and then the next one.  I understand the Catalunyan regional government opposes such a notion, but I cannot say this with certainty.  In any case, if Madrid was willing to deal with this entire issue peacefully (the only libertarian alternative), one possibility (assuming a proper “yes” vote for independence) would be to negotiate just such a condition in any separation agreement.
-----------------------------
I offer an interesting perspective on the events in Spain.  Maidan in Spain, and some new ‘dog whistles,’” by Scott Humor.  It is a well-researched piece that I will summarize: the events in Catalunya were driven by the Anglo empire; the intent is to disrupt the proposed supply of gas from North Africa such that European gas must be purchased from the United States (as Russia is also being pushed aside).

I am not doing the argument justice, but there it is.  I don’t know if this is true or not, but I don’t think it matters to me either way.

We don’t get to a few thousand governance units until we pass through 201.  Every peaceful means to bring this about (even if some faction of the empire is behind it) must be supported.

Decentralized and more numerous states are more difficult for the empire to control.  If this wasn’t true, they wouldn’t be working so hard to centralize everything.

29 comments:

  1. So many of the anti-secessionist side are the first to go and vote and preach the majority won. Especially when it is their side in the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I understand the impulse to support secessionist struggles a few things should be noted.

    1. It matters what kind of state will emerge and what it wants to do with its sovereignty. Following the election of the orange traitor California made a bunch of impotent noise about secession. While a libertarian might argue that it would be good regardless since that means less territory for the empire, it would obviously be hell for the non-garbage people living there. Furthermore the state itself would still be allied with the empire even if it had more control locally. A possible outcome in Catalonia could be the first majority Muslim state in West Europe and a closer relationship to Brussels.

    2. Secession is not always against power. See for example the case of Kosovo which is now a gangster state run by NATO and white slavers. Nothing can be done about this because Kosovo is "sovereign." Look also at what the Anglo powers did to Germany following the first war. Or look now at the "national aspirations" of the Kurds which are being used as tools for the Israeli-Saudi-US axis. In the realm of geopolitics secession can be used by one power to weaken another power and then swoop in like vultures.

    3. Libertarians like to pretend that secession is the "peaceful option" but they really should know better. The historical record is full of secession leading to violent struggle (the Cathars, Dixie, etc), and if you consider the modus operandi of the US empire today we know that any serious attempt at secession on the NA continent will be met with all the kings horses and all the Kings men.

    I don't think I am saying anything you are unaware of BM but curious as to your thoughts.

    (Disclaimer: I am really not following the Spanish thing very closely)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What difference does it make? It does not matter what the outcome is, if it comes to it, invaders can suppress a weaker state, as a foreign force rather than a "local."

      Delete
    2. UC, on your points:

      1) I think irrelevant. Those who don't like California may leave. Meanwhile, for those living in the other 49...I think Trump won the popular vote by a million or two outside of California and lost it by 4 million or so in California. I think about the benefits t these 49 as well.

      2) Multiple smaller gangster states instead of one large gangster state. What is the alternative - we are either going to have more (smaller) states in the future or fewer (larger). I will take more (smaller). More choice, always.

      3) Clearly secession rarely ends peacefully, but it is the only option that can. I have referenced one - and only one, to my recollection - that went reasonably peacefully, and that is regarding the former USSR.

      Delete
    3. On UC's first point: I can at least sympathize. How many of us live in states or metro centers like California, where it would be pretty chilling to consider the scenario where this governing body rewrites the "rules" from scratch post secession?

      What's it going to be like when you wake up the next morning to find every progressive utopian fantasy has been codified into state edict?

      The answer's an obvious one, it falls on whoever remains yet objects to handle. At least that's the hypothetical answer I'd have for the hypothetical scenario. Concerning to consider if you live in such an area, though.

      Delete
    4. In 1992, because of growing nationalist tensions in the government, Czechoslovakia was peacefully dissolved by parliament. On 1 January 1993 it formally separated into two independent countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia

      max

      Delete
    5. Max, the interesting thing about Czechoslovakia is that the more powerful Czech wanted separation from the poorer and more dysfunctional Slovakia.

      That is completely different from the situation with Catalonia, which pays much of the taxes that keep the Spanish state afloat.

      Delete
  3. "While a libertarian might argue that it would be good regardless since that means less territory for the empire, it would obviously be hell for the non-garbage people living there."
    I find this to be a completely relevant point, and my heart goes to such people. I could see a weak secessionist movement here in Dixie being co-opted by the Empire, thereby grouping the Southrons into a collective vassal state, giving themselves pretended legitimacy in the governance structure as in Europe.
    As one of the deplorables in Dixie my limited economic status (proletariat) would effectively cut me off from emigration, not to mention my only real choice would be emigration back into the Empire!
    Call it, how shall we say, acceptable collateral damage toward the goal of decentralization. The ends justify the means.
    Secession is needed for many people but in most cases the people are not ready for it.
    BM, you told me last week, and I paraphrase, "If you're plan is to take on the USG, I would suggest you find a different plan."
    Does not the same apply to Catalan?
    Should they take on the Spanish Gov, or should they come up with a new plan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josh, we can accept the status quo, we can support more centralization, or we can support decentralization.

      Which of these offers the best possibility for liberty? Which of these offers the best possibility for one to find a governance jurisdiction closer to their personal desire?

      As to your question of me, all that we are talking about is a vote - not a war.

      Delete
  4. Any secession movement not based upon Yahweh's immutable/unchanging moral law as the standard for government and society will prove to be just another contemporary instance of man doing what is right in his own eyes, per Judges 21:25.

    Judges 21:25 is what today is commonly known as humanism; aka, We the Peopleism, which is just a contemporary form of Baalism. See blog article "Could YOU be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/could-you-be-a-disciple-of-baal-and-not-know-it/.

    Then "Today's Mt. Carmel Christians" at http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/todays-mount-carmel-christians/.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like migration, shouldn't secession be supported only if it is done in accordance with self-ownership and property norms? In the same way A can't have a justifiable claim to move into B's property unless B invite him, can A vote for secession in a democratic election if that implies that B will be forced to secede against his will? Wouldn't that be a violation of self-ownership?

    Libertarians must always defend self-determination by secession, but it seems to me that not every secession is an act of self-determination if it involves A forcing B to secede. In a election where 2 million voters decide that a population of 7,5 million will secede, in which way these 5,5 million are self-determining themselves? I think that secession in accordance with the principle of self-ownership is that of the type done individually or voluntarily by associations of individual owners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I Have written too many times to count, the answer is simple: support the next secession.

      After a few dozen of these, we will be making real progress toward liberty.

      Delete
  6. Bionic Mosquito and others, thank you for the discussion of secession. Have any of you read The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr? It is a book originally published in 1957. While the book is fairly well known, it deserves a much wider audience.

    The problem is bigness itself, Kohr says. He is a thoughtful guy, and much of what he says is prophetic. He foresaw the U.S. acting as it does today, initiating wars. He is a talented writer with a humorous touch. Anyone with an interest in the topic of secession will get a lot out of his book.

    I have a brief discussion of The Breakdown of Nations in my Oct. 13, 2016 blog post at my website Carl Wells Books.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I see no libertarian argument for supporting a vote to transfer ownership of non-voters from one criminal authority to another. It might be a great strategy, or it might prove to be foolish and self-destructive. Either way, the voters lack the right (by libertarian rules) to impose their strategy on the non-voters.

    On the subject of choice, any governance unit (small or large) representing significantly greater liberty than other governance units must by definition also protect its borders from the vast majority of would be immigrants. So, even if emigration is possible, immigration to a more free location is unlikely to be a real option. Unless and until a governance unit protects property rights, including its borders, one might as well be choosing which cell block to occupy.

    Large governments break up as they lose the ability to control their subjects. Smaller governments will have greater ability to do so. If this were not the case, one world government would be inevitable. Governments lose the ability to control their subjects as technology provides greater relative power to individuals and small groups intent on resisting authority. The resulting smaller governments are an unavoidable side effect of this process, but are not generally speaking more free than a single larger government. They have greater control over their subjects, the individuals and groups intent on resisting them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff, as I have written too many times to count, this problem is solved by supporting the next vote on secession. Do this a few dozen times, and we will go a long way toward each individual finding a governance unit more to his liking.

      Do you have a better plan? Maybe ask the state for permission to be free or something?

      Delete
    2. "Do this a few dozen times, and we will go a long way toward each individual finding a governance unit more to his liking."

      I think you only read the first paragraph of my previous post. I gave two reasons why this would not be the case. Smaller governments have greater control over their subjects than do larger governments, and governments that support individual rights would necessarily have to close their borders to the mass immigration that would otherwise occur from more authoritative regions. You are the one who convinced me of the later case.

      I don't have a plan for the world, just myself and my family. My goal is to educate and liberate those that rely on me to the extent I am able. I do contribute my skills to advancing technologies others may use to resist certain government abuses. Some of those contributions are for a salary, but most are on my own time.

      Delete
    3. "Smaller governments have greater control over their subjects than do larger governments..."

      I understand this in theory, but I don't see it as even being a general truth in practice.

      Could you elaborate on the mechanics of why this would be. The only thing that is obvious is that a smaller population would naturally be easier to control. While this seems obvious, it also means less revenue.

      Historically, it seems that gov'ts increase their control along with an increase in size, until the tipping point.

      The size of the gov't at the tipping point seems incidental. I think the real causes are debt and loss of "consent of the governed."

      "...and governments that support individual rights would necessarily have to close their borders to the mass immigration that would otherwise occur from more authoritative regions."

      This is a good point. While it probably wouldn't occur with the first few secessions, at some point some of the new countries might figure out that attracting productive citizens is beneficial to the gov't.

      We'd also hope that some gov'ts would realize that a common culture would make the job of governing easier.

      These are lofty and perhaps unrealistic hopes, but the alternatives are more centralized power, or he status quo.

      Delete
    4. Jeff Bell

      “I think you only read the first paragraph of my previous post. I gave two reasons why this would not be the case.”

      I will try to do better.

      “Large governments break up as they lose the ability to control their subjects.”

      It has happened. But it sure has been painful up until that point. Would it not have been appropriate for libertarians to advocate for the break-up of the Soviet Union at any time during the 70 years before that eventually occurred?

      Would we not support the break-up of the United States – no matter the unequal levels of freedom (some more, some less) that will be found in each state (or county)? Would not the resulting states (certainly counties) have less power – individually and even in total – to rule the world? Would every state (let alone county) go along with the anglo-empire game?

      “Smaller governments will have greater ability to do so.”

      I find little empirical or theoretical reason to believe this to be true. In addition, smaller countries have fewer resources to use to control the rest of the world.

      “If this were not the case, one world government would be inevitable.”

      In general since the beginning of recorded history, the world has been moving toward ever-greater political centralization. When presented the opportunity to take one step in the other direction, should we not support it? Or should we support the state that wants to use force to keep people under its grasp, as Spain is doing to Catalans?

      “Governments lose the ability to control their subjects as technology provides greater relative power to individuals and small groups intent on resisting authority.”

      We see that this technological power cuts both ways. In any case, when a state is intent on using force to keep some subset of its citizens from forming a different government, is there some libertarian theory that supports such an action?

      “I don't have a plan for the world, just myself and my family.”

      Same here.

      “My goal is to educate and liberate those that rely on me to the extent I am able.”

      But can’t we also support (verbally and morally, if not otherwise) those who want to get out from under their current government and instead form a different one?

      Delete
    5. Jeff

      "Could you elaborate on the mechanics of why this would be. The only thing that is obvious is that a smaller population would naturally be easier to control. While this seems obvious, it also means less revenue."

      The easier to control smaller population is (I believe) why this is the case, though my assertion has been exhibited throughout history. Empires have great power, but always eventually break up or collapse. The collapse (eventually) stabilizes with a greater number of rulers over smaller regions. How could they stabilize if they had less control over the people than the original larger empire?

      I agree with less revenue, less overall power. Large governments are very powerful as long as they can control their greater number of subjects, but just like large companies they are less efficient and have less direct control over individuals.

      "The size of the gov't at the tipping point seems incidental. I think the real causes are debt and loss of "consent of the governed.""

      This IMO is the result of ruling over too many conflicting cultures, trying to control them all with a mostly uniform approach. I would think the size where control becomes impossible would be a function of the number and types of cultures, and on the ability of the people to resist.

      Delete
    6. BM

      "It has happened. But it sure has been painful up until that point. Would it not have been appropriate for libertarians to advocate for the break-up of the Soviet Union at any time during the 70 years before that eventually occurred?"

      If by advocate, you mean discuss the benefits of ending communism and other authoritarian forms of government, sure. If you mean backing or otherwise trying to convince one or more groups to immediately break away and follow a different government, I would say look to Ukraine or Kosovo, or ask George Soros. It is better to resist the government you have than to rally under the flag of a new or different government.

      "Would we not support the break-up of the United States – no matter the unequal levels of freedom (some more, some less) that will be found in each state (or county)? Would not the resulting states (certainly counties) have less power – individually and even in total – to rule the world? Would every state (let alone county) go along with the anglo-empire game?"

      The break up is inevitable, regardless of whether we support it. And I agree, the resulting governments would have less power to rule the world. But they would still be authoritarian governments, and they would individually have fewer subjects to focus on. If they were less able to control their smaller groups of subjects, they would by definition fall apart even faster. But after some period of often bloody chaos, those smaller governments stabilize in the absence of external influence.

      "In general since the beginning of recorded history, the world has been moving toward ever-greater political centralization."

      I disagree. Since the beginning of recorded history there have been repeating cycles of the expansion and collapse of authoritarian systems, and those cycles have exhibited increasingly shorter periods. I attribute the shorter periods to increased levels of technology.

      "When presented the opportunity to take one step in the other direction, should we not support it?"

      I believe the breakup of larger governments into smaller governments is a side effect of the people resisting those governments. It is not always, or even usually, a good thing for the people under the rule of the newer governments. If it were possible, would it not be better for the people to abandon support of the large government en mass? W.r.t. the Catalans only time will tell if their non-libertarian movement results in them having more or less liberty.

      "We see that this technological power cuts both ways."

      Yes, following the industrial revolution the means and methods of war and oppression were advanced at fantastic rates. Governments today, however, are helping advance the means and methods of resistance at similar rates. They've moved from bigger and better guns to faster communication and smarter automation.

      "In any case, when a state is intent on using force to keep some subset of its citizens from forming a different government, is there some libertarian theory that supports such an action?"

      I don't know why a libertarian would support either side. One might, however, hold an opinion on what side should win to provide the greatest liberty, an opinion that could be right or wrong.

      "But can’t we also support (verbally and morally, if not otherwise) those who want to get out from under their current government and instead form a different one?"

      Get out from under, yes. Form a new government, no. Isn't that how the US got its start?

      Delete
    7. Jeff B.

      We don't get to a few thousand or 1.5 billion or seven billion without passing through 201.

      Delete
    8. Alas, we are not likely to ever agree on this one. I'll just say I would not infringe on the rights of a single individual today for the chance of freeing the entire world 100 years from now.

      Delete
    9. Well, Jeff - Rome (in this case, the anti-Rome) wasn't built in a day! A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

      You get the point - and we need not agree, of course. But I thank you for the exchange.

      Delete
  8. The most important aspect of this issue, IMO, is "the consent of the governed." Without it large states have no chance. The more we see others withdraw their consent, the easier (or at least more likely) it becomes for the next.

    I'd like to challenge all who are voicing opposition to secession to go one step further.

    Let's hear an argument for the consolidation of power. Or at least try to justify the maintenance of the status quo.

    Decentralization, status quo, or consolidation. Which one is most likely (not guaranteed) to trend toward liberty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff, as you can now see, I have stolen your question a couple of times in my replies to others. Thanks!

      Delete
  9. 'Tis a good place to drop in a reminder of this beautiful little article by Jakub Wiusniewski: Why Almost Everyone Believes in Political Authority... And why this may change.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/jakub-bozydar-wisniewski/almost-everyone-believes-in-government/

    ReplyDelete