At what point does one lose the right of secession?

[libertarian answers]

Many would agree that the United States would be well within its right to withdraw or secede from the United Nations at any time and for any reason. But the issue becomes murkier when a US state talks of seceding from the US itself. There is limited debate on whether or not states should be able to secede since that question was answered via force of arms during the US Civil War. Almost none would agree that counties can secede from states, cities can secede from counties, and individuals from cities.

So the question is one of principle. At what point does an individual or group of individuals LOSE the right to secede from a larger political group?

In my mind, the individual doe NOT lose that right at any point (UN, US, state, county, city). If the individual is honored as the most important part of society, then that individual's right to secede must be honored. As I understand it, even a minarchist government would say that secession from the government is not permitted. That, in my opinion, would be placing the collective above the individual and intellectually inconsistent.

[D'kian]

Many would agree that the United States would be well within its right to withdraw or secede from the United Nations at any time and for any reason. But the issue becomes murkier when a US state talks of seceding from the US itself.

If you expect any serious debate, I'd advise you not to start it by equating wholly different things.

[libertarian answers]

If you expect any serious debate, I'd advise you not to start it by equating wholly different things.

Certainly the two topics are different. It is the underlying principle of secession that I wanted to debate. My contention is that the individual must be honored above any collective group. If I understand minarchism, at some point it must place the collective above the individual. I assume there are many minarchists who frequent this forum and wanted to hear their reasoning for how a minarchist state can fully respect the individual.

[DavidOdden]

In my mind, the individual doe NOT lose that right at any point (UN, US, state, county, city). If the individual is honored as the most important part of society, then that individual's right to secede must be honored. As I understand it, even a minarchist government would say that secession from the government is not permitted. That, in my opinion, would be placing the collective above the individual and intellectually inconsistent.

We're close to something. I know the neighborhood that you want to be in, now we just need the specific address. A debate needs a specific statement. Here is an example that I pulled off the web: "Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause" (this was from 2005). How exactly would you phrase your assertion? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you might try something about some over-arching principle which isn't itself in dispute entailing the universal right to secession. For instance, "only individuals have rights".

[D'kian]

Certainly the two topics are different. It is the underlying principle of secession that I wanted to debate. My contention is that the individual must be honored above any collective group.

What do individual rights have to do with secession?

Let's take up the instances you posted:

The UN is an association of countries bound by its charter. Any country can leave any time it wants.

An individual is a free entity. He can do as he pleases. In most countries, even authoritarian ones, individuals can leave freely whenever they want to. if you mean can an individual stay in a country but not be subjected to its laws, then no.

A state is a political entity bound to a country by law, custom, heritage and even need. Does a state or province ahve a right to secede (which is the only case in which the word actually does apply)? It depends. The Southern states wanted to leave the union in large part to preserve slavery. That is evil and immoral and was, rightly, not allowed to happen by the Union. In cases where a country itself is evil, as was the case with the Soviet Union, then there is a moral right for any state or province (or "republic") to secede.

If I understand minarchism, at some point it must place the collective above the individual.

What exactly do you mean by minarchism? I gather it means something like minnimal government. If so, you're wrong.

[DavidV]

By the way, there are several threads related to this topic:

A Right To Secession?

States' Rights

World Government Versus Limited States