Secession: Are We Free to Go?


Suverans2's picture

Secession: Are We Free to Go[1]?

As I now understand it...

You, the individual human, are free to withdraw from membership in the STATE OF ______________ (ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, ARIZONA, etc., any time you like, for any reason you choose.

If you choose to remain a member of a we, a collective-individual, (one of the fifty States, for example), you cannot "withdraw from membership" in the larger collective-individual known as the United States, without first, or simultaneously, withdrawing from membership in the collective-individual known as STATE OF ______________, because, (presuming it hasn't seceded), that collective-individual has consented to be a member of the collective-individual known as the United States.

And, remember, if either you, or your State, secedes from membership, you and/or it, must forgo membership benefits/privileges; your "walk must match your talk". The benefits/privileges are the bait in the "monkey trap"[2].

Will you, or your State, be allowed to "freely secede", that is to say without force being used against you, is quite another question, however.

[1] "Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account." ~ Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans and Senior Fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute
[2] A cage containing a banana with a hole large enough for a monkey's hand to fit in, but not large enough for a monkey's fist (clutching a banana) to come out. Used to "catch" monkeys that are too greedy to let go of the banana and run away.

Suverans2's picture

“...the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Samarami's picture

Keep in mind that the gangster, Lincoln, was governmentalists through and through: for him there was great benefit in portraying the "anarchist" as a violent, bomb-throwing thug who was willing to do harm to anybody and everybody who disagreed or got in his way. "Anarchism" had to be looked upon as chaos and disorder -- only quelled by a strong hand from authoritarian central government.

Anarchy, on the other hand is....well here: let John Hasnas explain it:

    "...Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state.

    For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse..."

So much for anarchy.

Now as to secession: if a "state" can secede from the District of Collectivism, why can't a "county" secede from a "state" -- or a "city" secede from a "county"???

I am a sovereign state. I'm the richest man in my city. I have very few federal reserve notes or investments designated in said bills of credit, but I have something they don't have and apparently can't achieve: anarchy.


Suverans2's picture

Re: gangster Lincoln

    I was aware of, and agree, with all that you said. Aside from that Abe was right, "...the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy."

Re: Anarchy, on the other hand is...

    I agree. Many words have multiple meanings, which is why John Locke suggests in his, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: (1) never use a word without having a clear idea of what it means; (2) try to recognize the same meaning for words as others do so that we can communicate with a common vocabulary; (3) if there is the slightest chance that the meaning of your words will be unclear, define your terms; and (4) always use words consistently; and why Voltaire [François-Marie Arouet] wrote, in his dissertation entitled, Abuse of Words, "We must here repeat what Locke has so strongly urged — Define your terms."

Re: if a "state" can secede from the District of Collectivism, why can't a "county" secede from a "state" -- or a "city" secede from a "county"???

    And, why can't an "individual" secede, i.e. withdraw from membership in, "all of the above"? The only answer I've ever gotten from anyone amounts to, because their god[1] won't recognize it.

Re: I am a sovereign state.

    No comment.


[1] "…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god." ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill