With fragmentation I mean political fragmentation, eg secessions, break ups and the like. And my answer is no, not always.
I think fragmentation is automatically welcomed, because it is assumed that it makes politics more local and thus less damaging. As anarchists we would like to see the death of politics, but as long as it exists it is better if it is on the most local scale possible. Obviously a small town sheriff will never be as tyranical as the NKVD.
However I think that in some cases fragmentation can make politics less local, and consolidation can make them more local. Imagine a more or less independent medium sized state from which a prosperous city secedes. But now imagine that the newly independent city becomes a play-thing of some great power.
In this case the politics in this city have become even less local than they used to be. Instead of decisions that affect it being made by the establishment of this medium sized state, they are now made by the establishment of the great power, that the people in the formally independent city have even less influence on.
With fragmentation I mean political fragmentation, eg secessions, break ups and the like.
Yes. The State has no justification for its existence or any of its actions, it has no right to control or manage people. Everyone, including murderers and communists, has a right to secede from the State and reject its authority.
Well I don't think that secession has to be any more voluntary than consolidation. Many secessions were carried out by the dictate of the mayority, as were many unifications. Many secessions were prevented by force, but also many unifications.
Well I don't think that secession has to be any more voluntary than consolidation. Many secessions were carried out by the dictate of the mayority, as were many unifications.
This is a mistaken use of words. The secession is never objectionable, though forcing other people to join the state you create after secession is of course a violation of liberal principles. These are, however, two totally different things; despite the fact that they may be causally related such as in the American Revolution.
That is great, but this way (what I call) consolidation can also be secession. You secede from the state of Prussia to proclaim the state of Germany. So it is a nice formalistic point to make, but you didn't really adress what I was really trying to talk about.
I think it is a waste of time. And jumping the gun.
I think it is popular due to the fact that people think it is a shortcut. Kind of like other political schemes.
But anarchism seems to follow from class conscious and ideological change. It is when the ideological (horizontal) state becomes too weak and so the force-based (vertical) state also becomes useless.
It seems secession lends credence to the idea of 'rational borders' or voluntarism within politics, which secession isn't. Since the secession was forced and the people within the seceding state also have new existential problems. If a new constitution is set up, it might also have the disasterous effect of legitimizing the myth of the social contract -- the new one and all the old ones.
Is it unobjectionable for Baden-Württemberg to secede to enslave the jews?
You're conflating two things which are logically unrelated. It is legit to resist the police, at any time, and deny their authority - even when guilty. Why? Because they don't represent your victims, they're just thugs with badges. Does that make it just to kill and rob? Of course not.
No, particularly if the group seems to not be able to sustain itself for a long term self preserving culture and is built off of zealous ideology. A small band of fiery zealot comrades is less preferable to me than a comparatively larger band of tepid agnostic citizens.
I disagree. From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'd like the crazies to all go to one place and stop trying to control the broader society. I'd rather have Nazi Germany than a half-Nazi Europe.
That is just sophistry. Your point has been exposed as nonsense. Stop making excuses!
Do you do anything but fling invectives and make unsubstantiated claims?
You said secession is always unobjectionable. I showed how ridiculous this statement is. Now you can admit being wrong, but enough of these word games.
I said you're conflating secession with things that might be circumstantially related to it.
Also, you're clearly being trollish, and I am done talking to you. Celebrate your triumph if you please, it does not concern me.
On the one hand, you could say it is better.
But to devote time to this cause unto itself. Or to think that lightbulbs will go off in people's brains because of it.... it seems a waste of time. And not the type of action which would prove a principle we can get behind.
Right now, the country with the most chance of splitting up soon is Sudan. But it seems whether they split up or not, it will not lead to greater or lesser freedom. The premises which lead to the possible split were grievances over unfair treatment of the south (the end result is a relative win-win for the south: either their own country or more involvement in government). But no absolute win. Also, the problem itself -- clashes and racism -- came from the autonomy it gained from Britain about 50 years ago. So one problem simply lead to the other, because the ideology didn't necessarily change because it left in place a certain set of government privileges of the 'autonomous' government of educated Arabs over the native and discriminated-against Africans.
I am certainly not saying secession is ideal or practical. Just that there is nothing objectionable about telling the government to go to Hell, for whatever reason - even stupid reasons.
Stupid reasons aren't objectionable?
It's not fragmentation if another state is being created.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Philosophically, but not actionably.