General

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:50:42 GMT

Stupid reasons aren't objectionable?

Philosophically, but not actionably.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Stranger — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:46:11 GMT

It's not fragmentation if another state is being created.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Angurse — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:24:12 GMT

Stupid reasons aren't objectionable?

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:28:27 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

John Ess — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:23:33 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:22:30 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

scineram — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:19:25 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:13:13 GMT

Do you do anything but fling invectives and make unsubstantiated claims?

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

scineram — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:00:43 GMT

That is just sophistry. Your point has been exposed as nonsense. Stop making excuses!

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:49:27 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

William — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:47:01 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Edmund Carlyle — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:32:47 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

scineram — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:28:36 GMT

Is it unobjectionable for Baden-Württemberg to secede to enslave the jews?

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

John Ess — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:03:56 GMT

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.

Re: Should libertarians always root for fragmentation?

Marko — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:00:37 GMT

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.