My father and I were getting into a discussion and i told him that seccession is an inherent right of the states. He said that Seccession would lead to anarchy and chaos. I of course don't but that idea at all since it never happened. My father is a big admirer of Aberham Lincoln (he calls him "the greates historical figure") whats a good response to those who say that seccession would lead to chaos?
Well, since the argument that secession would, of all things, lead to chaos doesn't make any sense to me, then I think the simplest thing to ask him is why he thinks that.
Also regarding Lincoln, you might throw a few phrases such as "suspended habeas corpus", "imprisoned 30,000 without a trial for several months", "used blackmail to rig elections in the south", and "every other country got rid of slavery peacefully, yet Lincoln couldn't use his famed diplomatic skills, and went into a war that cost 600,000 people, the deadliest in US history". Tell him that "if we measure presidents by the constitution, that Lincoln was one of the worst presidents, and for lack of a better word was a despot."
He's right that secession consistently applied to its logical conclusion (down to the individual level) will lead to anarchy, but he's wrong that this will necessarily lead to chaos.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union. He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy.
The thirteen American colonies seceded from the British Empire. Norway seceded from Sweden. Singapore seceded from Malaysia. Belgium seceded from Holland. Fifteen constituent republics seceded from the Soviet Union. Checkia and Slovakia seceded from each other.
None of these were followed by chaos. Only Virginia, Massachusetts, and North Carolina endured further secessions - one in each case: Kentucky, Maine, and Tennessee. All of which were peaceful.
gplauche: He's right that secession consistently applied to its logical conclusion (down to the individual level) will lead to anarchy, but he's wrong that this will necessarily lead to chaos.
Unless some kind of inter-sovereign system of justice is developed, this anarchy will result in chaos as conflicts overlap across jurisdictions.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Voluntary unions opposed to involuntary unions are always more productive and healthy. People exchange for their self interest. The right to succeed from unions should fall in line with what we want contractual unions. Having the ability to succeed from a contract does not imply an atomistic society must follow. It happens to be the case that we can choose to, or choose not to exchange with another. When an entity says that we must exchange with each other ,or bind the way in which we do so, it inherently makes the exchange less free and productive.
On democracy:
Dad everyone in the room has just voted to take the contents of your wallet and disperse them among us. It is a public good you see. I'm sorry you don't like that It's democracy. At least the people in the room will not further assume to run your life.
Individualism Rocks
Fred Furash: Well, since the argument that secession would, of all things, lead to chaos doesn't make any sense to me, then I think the simplest thing to ask him is why he thinks that. Also regarding Lincoln, you might throw a few phrases such as "suspended habeas corpus", "imprisoned 30,000 without a trial for several months", "used blackmail to rig elections in the south", and "every other country got rid of slavery peacefully, yet Lincoln couldn't use his famed diplomatic skills, and went into a war that cost 600,000 people, the deadliest in US history". Tell him that "if we measure presidents by the constitution, that Lincoln was one of the worst presidents, and for lack of a better word was a despot."
the opposing argument goes "during times of insurrection, the government has the right to suspend civil liberties such as habeus corpus"
Zgoalie18:the opposing argument goes "during times of insurrection, the government has the right to suspend civil liberties such as habeus corpus"
The constitution gives congress that right, not the president. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority, then refused to convene congress for several week after the scheduled start date in order to get his war going before congress could interfere.
By the way, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the state of Maryland, which had not seceded. So where's the insurrection?
What does he think about those terrible, ungrateful colonists and the wise attempt to keep them in the British Union?
If we acknowledge a right to secession, all the way to the individual level, it will lead to anarchy. Good.
So, the Constitution allows for the suspension of our rights during times of insurrection. What a shock - people building a powerful government let it do whatever it wants when challenged. How about this - I'll start caring about that grant of power when they start caring about the rest of the document.
DBratton: Zgoalie18:the opposing argument goes "during times of insurrection, the government has the right to suspend civil liberties such as habeus corpus" The constitution gives congress that right, not the president. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority, then refused to convene congress for several week after the scheduled start date in order to get his war going before congress could interfere. By the way, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the state of Maryland, which had not seceded. So where's the insurrection?
Also it is worth remembering that judges later have condemned this as anti-constitutional (if I remember correctly) since he did it of his own authority, as you say.
would secession lead to more chaos than the civil war? now that was some serious chaos.
why can't the larger entity just let the smaller entity leave? "We value our union with you so much, we'll kill you if you try to leave us."
money and power. if you have to be forced to stay together, doesn't that say something about the nature of the union?
Yes, makes you wonder what the Union man thinks about divorce, doesn't it?
elbita:if you have to be forced to stay together, doesn't that say something about the nature of the union?
We can also add Vermont seceding from New York to that long list of peaceful secessions.
Stranger: Unless some kind of inter-sovereign system of justice is developed, this anarchy will result in chaos as conflicts overlap across jurisdictions.
Several bilateral agreements between various pairings of such independent states would suffice. The concept that only top-town enforcement of "justice" can avoid chaos is inherently flawed. What power such a Hobbesian Leviathan can do in the name of good can easily be corrupted to do evil . . . as power corrupts, expecially unchecked power. John Locke debunked Hobbes' notion of the social need for such a supreme power (essentially justification for Monarchy) two centuries ago. States that keep breaking such bilateral agreements would simply be shunned, e.g. North Korea; the notion that there has to be a United Nations enforcement mechanism to militarily punish such "rogue states" is quite unnecessary and would be counter-productive.
This is a fascinating question...
Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922 but the results appear to have been mixed in terms of the resulting freedoms enjoyed by the Irish people. Ireland is significantly more free than Britain is today but large numbers of people had to emigrate to Britain and the US from Ireland in search of employment up to the 1980s.
In general, however, my instinct would definitely be to view secession as a positive phenomenon, since it makes central planning over the previously united domains impossible. The threat of secession may thus also be viewed as positive.
If you look at the richest countries in the world by GDP per capita (adjusted for purchasing power parity), you will notice a strong showing of relatively small (or in the case of the US, historically decentralised) countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
1. Luxembourg
2. Ireland
3. Norway
4. USA
5. Iceland
6. Switzerland
7. Netherlands
8. Denmark
9. Qatar
10. Austria
Large countries with similar democratic traditions France, Germany, Italy and Spain are all outside the top 20.
Another point that I believe could be made with respect to small countries is the potential for much greater transparency, flexibility and accountability from their governments. If it's much easier for individuals to influence and keep track of local than national government (and I think it is) then presumably local governments ought to be less likely to engage in corruption, and their policies should be more appropriate for the small areas for which they are designed.
http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/
ask your father whether large countries or small countries have done more harm to their own people and to the world. does he think it has been a good thing to concentrate all the power in china, japan, north korea, russia/USSR, yugoslavia, germany, vietnam, burma, any number of african countries, the USA (the list goes on)? i believe the creation of large countries has been disastrous for humanity. if prussia fought bavaria over and over, it couldn't possibly be as bad as two world wars. if mongolia fought tibet, surely it wouldn't be as bad as the number killed by mao.
JimS:John Locke debunked Hobbes' notion of the social need for such a supreme power (essentially justification for Monarchy) two centuries ago.
Agreed. And FYI Johannes Althusius' 1603 work Politica essentially debunked Leviathan four centuries ago - 48 years before Leviathan was even written. Althusius attacked egalitarianism, which is essential to Hobbes war of all against all scenario, with the observation that all men are born, not as equals, but as helpless infants. They are born into families and societies (and authority relationships) that already exist to receive and support them. Natural (which implies legitimate) authority is only the authority within the family and that which derives from family authority. Legitimate village authority is delegated by cooperating families, provincial authority by cooperating villages, etc. Althusius' theory does not suppose an initial contract or starting point for political authority (apart from eden), but rather asserts that natural authority has always existed as long as there have been men.
Byzantine: Zgoalie18: he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union. On the contrary, it is the heavy-handed process of centralization of governance over irreconcilably diverse polities that leads to violence. As I sometimes put it, let the US break up peacably now rather than violently later. He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy. Lost the vote? The clear electoral majorities of the Southern states favored secession. Or does he believe there's such a thing as "too much" democracy?
Zgoalie18: he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union.
he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union.
On the contrary, it is the heavy-handed process of centralization of governance over irreconcilably diverse polities that leads to violence. As I sometimes put it, let the US break up peacably now rather than violently later.
He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy.
Lost the vote? The clear electoral majorities of the Southern states favored secession. Or does he believe there's such a thing as "too much" democracy?
my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS
Zgoalie18:my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS
So if a majority vote to abuse a minority, the minority should have absolutely no recourse to protect its rights? Say, if half the country were involved in agriculture, and half were engaged in industry, and the industrial half outvoted the agricultural half - and voted that a stiff tariff should be placed, so that they could charge more for finished goods without fearing international competition...
Zgoalie18: Byzantine: Zgoalie18: he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union. On the contrary, it is the heavy-handed process of centralization of governance over irreconcilably diverse polities that leads to violence. As I sometimes put it, let the US break up peacably now rather than violently later. He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy. Lost the vote? The clear electoral majorities of the Southern states favored secession. Or does he believe there's such a thing as "too much" democracy? my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS
So, I suppose your father would have supported the "right" of Nazi Germany to kill Jewish citizens, since the *** were elected with a clear majority, right?
Zgoalie18:my father wrote back...
Your dad is avoiding the question. There was and is no national election process to determine if a state may secede. Each state individually elected to join the union and each state could individually decide to leave it. And yes, they could do it just because they didn't like the way a presidential election went, though there was a great deal more to it than that.
another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair election and were simply sore losers.
Zgoalie18:another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair election and were simply sore losers.
And the sheep did get to vote on what the wolves would have for dinner. It just turned out that there were more wolves than sheep, so they have no cause for complaint.
Zgoalie18: another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair election and were simply sore losers.
Not to leave you hanging, but why not buy him a copy of Tom Dilorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked? He probably makes better points in that book than any of us could come up with.
If that doesn't work, try explaining how Hitler and Lenin rose to power only after previous leaders eroded the right of secession.
My favorite analogy! "Sure, I imprisoned my wife in the cellar and beat her until she lost all hope of escape. But don't you see I had to do it? I saved our marriage!"
--Len.
My recommendation is harsh: give up on discussing this with your dad. I do not think your father has any hope.
I mean that seriously because his point of view (chaos = anarchy ???) is wilfully ignorant and he seems to embrace coercion.
The aspiration toward freedom is the most essentially human of all human manifestations. -Eric Hoffer
It's creepy. Most people haven't even heard of Hobbes, yet they believe in the Hobbesian idea of the man's natural state. Thus the wierd notion that if the government does something, it is then impossible for that thing to be done through voluntary cooperation. Like Rothbard's saying that if the government made shoes, people would assume that the private sector would be incapable of making shoes. Insane.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!