Establishing Government

[D'kian]

There's an important factor to consider. A government that allows secession of part of its nation will look weak to other nations. In fact it may be weak, think of the USSR in the early 90s, or it may simply lack the will to keep itself together. In any case, the perceived weakness, real or not, can be reason enough for other countries to intervene and try to extract concessions, or take territory, etc.

A moral government would stop secession on these grounds alone. An immoral one would, too.

[sanjavalen]

There's an important factor to consider. A government that allows secession of part of its nation will look weak to other nations. In fact it may be weak, think of the USSR in the early 90s, or it may simply lack the will to keep itself together. In any case, the perceived weakness, real or not, can be reason enough for other countries to intervene and try to extract concessions, or take territory, etc.

A moral government would stop secession on these grounds alone. An immoral one would, too.

"Looking" weak is not a reason to initiate the use of force.

[Miles White]

"Looking" weak is not a reason to initiate the use of force.

Maintaining a centralized enough government to enforce an objective code of laws that protects you from the initiation of force, does.

Edited June 8, 2008 by Miles White

[D'kian]

"Looking" weak is not a reason to initiate the use of force.

Yes it is. Looking weak can make any enemy comfortable with the idea of attacking you, and that puts the citizens of a country in danger. Therefore a moral country has to preserve an appearance of strength in order to protect its citizens from attack, which is a legitimate function of government. If the appearance matches reality, so much the better.

This goes beyond allowing or not allowing a portion of a country to secede. It means keeping a well-trained, well-equipped military force, with the capability to deploy it anywhere. But more important, it also means maintaining a rational foreign policy, one that tells the world we will defend ourselves and look out after our national self-interest by any means necessary.

[DragonMaci]

Good ol' Kane, never fails...

Actually since I was pointing out an error in a comment in this thread, the detour must of happened in the post I replied to if at all since that post set up the new topic not me.

Maintaining a centralized enough government to enforce an objective code of laws that protects you from the initiation of force, does.

Yes it is.

No to both of you. Nothing can justify the initiation of force. Only retaliatory force is justified.

Edited June 8, 2008 by DragonMaci

[Unknown Idealist]

Why would anyone want to secede from a moral government? People who are against a moral government are the people who think the initiation of force is proper, thus making them a thug or thief. If the group trying to secede violates rights and/or initiates force, then the government would have the right to take action to defend its citizens.

Morality does not rule out incompetence. A government can be strictly limited, staffed with people of good character and still badly run. Are bunglers and blockheads in high places reason enough to secede? Yes, if the disgruntled minority can’t get satisfaction through any other means.

[sanjavalen]

Morality does not rule out incompetence. A government can be strictly limited, staffed with people of good character and still badly run. Are bunglers and blockheads in high places reason enough to secede? Yes, if the disgruntled minority can’t get satisfaction through any other means.

In such a case, as long as the government is founded strictly in accordance with a respect for individual rights, there is no problem with secession.

Though to be honest I find the hypothetical a bit incredulous.

And of course you have no right to found a competent tyranny if dissatisfied with an incompetent free company.

[Unknown Idealist]

In such a case, as long as the government is founded strictly in accordance with a respect for individual rights, there is no problem with secession.

Though to be honest I find the hypothetical a bit incredulous.

I suppose you mean that you find the hypothetical "incredible," and that regarding it you are "incredulous." But why? All my life I've had to deal with incompetent people in private industry. Would it be the least bit surprising, then. to find a twit or two in the halls of government, even of the Objectivist variety? Having a constitution devised by the greatest minds does not guarantee that the the greatest minds get elected or appointed to office.

[sanjavalen]

I suppose you mean that you find the hypothetical "incredible," and that regarding it you are "incredulous." But why? All my life I've had to deal with incompetent people in private industry. Would it be the least bit surprising, then. to find a twit or two in the halls of government, even of the Objectivist variety? Having a constitution devised by the greatest minds does not guarantee that the the greatest minds get elected or appointed to office.

Because you don't need the greatest minds to have a competent government.

[DragonMaci]

I suppose you mean that you find the hypothetical "incredible," and that regarding it you are "incredulous." But why? All my life I've had to deal with incompetent people in private industry. Would it be the least bit surprising, then. to find a twit or two in the halls of government, even of the Objectivist variety? Having a constitution devised by the greatest minds does not guarantee that the the greatest minds get elected or appointed to office.

Incompetents are extremely unlikely to get elected to government just like they are extremely unlikely to get elected to the board of a business.

[AMirvish]

The threat of force is implied in the creation and operation of a government. Even a proper government in effect says to everyone, respect our authority to protect our citizens or we'll use force against you. It may be somewhat disingenuous to claim that only the actual first shot constitutes the initiation of force: there will be instances in which it is not.

During the War of 1812, the New England states considered secession in response to what they considered "Mr. Madison's War." Had they done so, they would have formed a government based on individual rights. However, since not all people in those states would have agreed with such a decision, they would have been placed in just this situation and the Federal government would have had to suppress the secession (which itself would have disrupted any number of other things). During the Plains Wars against the Indians, a somewhat similar situation arose. As individuals, the Indians had rights. Even collectively, many tribes lived without the necessity of conflict with our settlers. However, since one of government's responsibilities is to establish private ownership over unclaimed or common land, and since private citizens moving West settled, worked and established the land, situations arose in which the Federal government imposed its authority (including that of establishing state governments in the territories) on people who chose not to recognize its authority and who were not, in all cases, initiating force against it.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Incompetents are extremely unlikely to get elected to government just like they are extremely unlikely to get elected to the board of a business.

You obviously haven't met many local politicians.

Besides which, even at the higher levels, they are competent at political skills (getting re-elected, making deals), not necessarily at making a wise policy decision.

[DragonMaci]

You obviously haven't met many local politicians.

Besides which, even at the higher levels, they are competent at political skills (getting re-elected, making deals), not necessarily at making a wise policy decision.

I meant in a rational society. Rational people won't elect incompetent people.

[Unknown Idealist]

Because you don't need the greatest minds to have a competent government.

But if you can differentiate between “great” and “good,” then you can understand a preference for “outstanding” over merely “satisfactory,” or “very good” over merely “acceptable.”

A political leader who avoids the pitfalls of corruption and gross negligence can still leave much room for improvement.

Choosing a great leader over a merely competent leader can mean the difference between survival and disaster for a nation. And that difference may be important enough to make a minority want to secede.

[Unknown Idealist]

Incompetents are extremely unlikely to get elected to government just like they are extremely unlikely to get elected to the board of a business.

In fact, it is not unusual for stockholders to retain poor managers or replace them with equally inept personnel. For example, Sears once dominated discount department stores in America. But despite changes in CEOs this retail giant steadily lost market share to dynamic, aggressive new rivals, first Kmart, then Wal-Mart.

As for voters, there is no reason to suppose that the secret ballot encourages rational decisions when it comes time to replace incompetent politicians or policies. For example, government schools have a long and ignoble record of waste, mis-education and abuse. Yet I cannot think of a single instance in which a voting majority have chosen to defund “public” schools and replace them with a truly free market approach.

Now you may wish to argue that we would first have to have a rational population in order to adopt a morally sound constitution with strict limitations. But a fickle population can change faster than the political charter that governs it. A perfect constitution may be birthed by a rational mother but raised by unpredictable guardians.

Secession, then, is just one additional check on government gone astray.

[Seeker]

Secession, then, is just one additional check on government gone astray.

What limits on secession would you propose to ensure that it would not devolve into anarchy?

Edited June 16, 2008 by Seeker

[DavidOdden]

But a fickle population can change faster than the political charter that governs it. A perfect constitution may be birthed by a rational mother but raised by unpredictable guardians.

Secession, then, is just one additional check on government gone astray.

Or, a source of government gone astray, birthed by irrational populist politics. The problem with secession versus ordinary political change is that secession cuts the legal ties, so if Chicago irrationally seceedes over an urge to ban fois gras, higher-level political protections embodied in the US Constitution would no longer be applicable. Secession makes sense only if there is mass hysteria and exceptional localized rationality. By observations have identified more (numbers and intensity of) localized insanity than widespread, uniform insanity.

[Unknown Idealist]

What limits on secession would you propose to ensure that it would not devolve into anarchy?

What kind of limits did you have in mind? Are you asking me if an individual should be punished for withdrawing his consent from the state that claims sovereignty over him? My understanding of free nations is that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Or, a source of government gone astray, birthed by irrational populist politics. The problem with secession versus ordinary political change is that secession cuts the legal ties, so if Chicago irrationally seceedes over an urge to ban fois gras, higher-level political protections embodied in the US Constitution would no longer be applicable. Secession makes sense only if there is mass hysteria and exceptional localized rationality.

This assumes that such protections are not only applicable but enforced under the status quo. Have you tried to buy a gun lately without having to fill out a federal form? How about earning income without declaring it to the IRS? What is to be gained by leaving legal ties intact if the central government is the chief violator of individual rights? Yes, we can deplore a secessionist Chicago for banning goose liver. But it is the liver-banning that should be the object of our ire, not the seceding per se. Consider that the residents of British North America prior to 1776 considered themselves subjects of the Crown. Their revolution was an act of withdrawing from a larger union, in other words, secession. The “exceptional localized rationality” of the American colonists is the perfect example of why secession can and should be employed as a means of reclaiming individual rights.

By observations have identified more (numbers and intensity of) localized insanity than widespread, uniform insanity.

Would it be fair to conclude that the earth's population as a whole is more rational than that of the U.S. in particular?

Edited June 17, 2008 by Unknown Idealist

[DavidOdden]

This assumes that such protections are not only applicable but enforced under the status quo.

No, it just assumes, as is the case, that there are some protections of rights that attach to being an American. I don't by any means assume that all rights are recognised and protected.

What is to be gained by leaving legal ties intact if the central government is the chief violator of individual rights?

The correct question to be asking is, what guarantee is there that the seccesionists would not make things vastly worse.

But it is the liver-banning that should be the object of our ire, not the seceding per se.

It's not secession per se, it is the increased risk to liberty that comes from secession that should be the object of our ire. That, or the politically addressable liver bans within the context of a non-Balkanized America.

The “exceptional localized rationality” of the American colonists is the perfect example of why secession can and should be employed as a means of reclaiming individual rights.

But it's an irrelevant example as an indeed special nonce instance, and it's negated by the secession of the South. The only realistically imaginable basis for some region to seceed from the US would be some racial-hatred thing, or a compulsion to be free of the First Amendment and declare New Alabama to be a statutorily Christian nation. Neither would be a valid grounds for secession, and both are the essential and unavoidable dangers of seccession.

[Seeker]

What kind of limits did you have in mind? Are you asking me if an individual should be punished for withdrawing his consent from the state that claims sovereignty over him? My understanding of free nations is that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I think this is actually conflating two very distinct things. An individual is free to not delegate his right of self-defense, but remains answerable to the government should he use force against anyone else (for a cogent explanation of this, see OPAR p. 372). As I see it, this means that a group of anarchists can never properly assert territorial rights to the exclusion of said government; for example, should an anarchist murder a non-seceding member of society within the anarchists' asserted territory, the criminal would remain punishable by the government notwithstanding the territorial assertion.

By contrast, we are here discussing the scenario of a secessionist group seeking to establish its own proper, objective government by right within a sub-territory of an existing government, which must then relinquish said territory. The basic limitation is that secession must be consistent with protecting individual rights. This implies that a new proper government be established; what are the minimum procedural requirements for so doing? By what standards should the prospective new government be judged for adequacy by the old? Are there specific legal requirements? Are the geographic boundaries well-defined and agreed upon? Is there a minimum population size required? Is there adequate provision for the minority that does not want to secede? How would competing secessionist claims over overlapping territories be resolved? Would the new territory be non-continguous or the result of gerrymandering and how would this affect the ability of government(s) to function? The answers to such questions must form the basis of laws governing secession, if secession is to be permitted at all, and there may be good enough reasons for not doing so.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Seeker

[Unknown Idealist]

No, it just assumes, as is the case, that there are some protections of rights that attach to being an American. I don't by any means assume that all rights are recognised and protected.

Given that the U.S. government’s control of the average citizen far exceeds the British Crown’s intrusions on American colonial life, the grounds for secession now are even greater than they were in 1776. Certainly those intent on keeping existing rule shouldn’t have to change their allegiance. However, others who prefer a government that doesn’t engage in systematic legalized theft (taxation), widespread destruction of wealth (inflation), imprisoning thousands for peaceful activities, outlawing low wage jobs, subsidies for well-connected fat cats and bums, and a myriad of other assaults on liberty and common sense – those dissenters should be allowed to go in peace.

The correct question to be asking is, what guarantee is there that the seccesionists would not make things vastly worse.

Why is only the secessionist government obliged to guarantee increased individual freedom? How about having the central government guarantee that things will get better? And if the status quo doesn’t improve in, say, five or ten years, the terms of the guarantee should allow us to break away with no hard feelings.

It's not secession per se, it is the increased risk to liberty that comes from secession that should be the object of our ire. That, or the politically addressable liver bans within the context of a non-Balkanized America.

A wise investor diversifies. So how is risk minimized by placing all our hopes for freedom in one gang on the Potomac? In fact, secession would benefit the remaining loyalists, too. If a “brain drain” started flowing out of the mixed economy U.S. for a laissez faire breakaway republic, the D.C. pols would have all the more incentive to clean up their act. Still opposed to splitting up? Then tell me this: how miserable do things have to get before secession starts to sound reasonable to you? Do we have to arrive at a one-party state with secret trials, concentration camps and total government control of the media?

But it's an irrelevant example as an indeed special nonce instance, and it's negated by the secession of the South.

Since history provides both morally legitimate and illegitimate cases of secession, why assume that all future cases must be sought for the worst reasons? Estonia’s 1991 declaration of independence offers a shining modern example of individual freedom being advanced through secession.

The only realistically imaginable basis for some region to seceed from the US would be some racial-hatred thing, or a compulsion to be free of the First Amendment and declare New Alabama to be a statutorily Christian nation. Neither would be a valid grounds for secession, and both are the essential and unavoidable dangers of seccession.

I understand that if one is opposed to the idea of secession, the best examples to debate would involve race bigots and religious zealots. But in this context, I’d like to ask what guarantee do we have that Washington will not one day be run by theocrats?