Alaska only became a state in 1959, but somehow we are supposed to believe that it is part of the enternal natural law that it should always and everywhere be part of the union, and any thought to the contrary–the mere thought!–is grounds for permanent exclusion from public office.
Such is the implication behind the completely bizarre claim that Sarah Palin’s involvement with the Alaskan secession movement amounts to a disastrous revelation for the McCain camp.
Why precisely this is such a horrid thought is never explained. Alaska would surely be better off, and does anyone in the other 49 states really believe that some calamity would befall the U.S. if Alaska became independent? It’s nuts. Separating off territories from a mother country is at the very core of U.S. history and its founding, and we really saw many examples of peaceful secession in the old Soviet Union.
But somehow in the U.S., the very idea that the existing configuration of the nation state should ever be diminished by a single inch is a great taboo. And why? Because the media tell us so.
This book on secession clearly needs broader circulation.
{ 8 comments }
Revolution substitutes one set of rulers for another but leaves the structure intact and controllable. The ambitious and powerful can continue their game under a new banner unabated.
Secession is much more fearful–the citizens leave the system and reform a smaller, more manageable organization that breaks the old regime. The ambitious and powerful are left in power and left behind, which deprives them of control.
Bloody revolution is more easily accomplished than peaceful secession because it is less threatening to the ruling class. Killing people is no big deal so long as all the subjects stay in the coral, but letting the cattle loose on the open range of freedom is unthinkable.
Fortunately, the sheep stay safely folded and easily sheered and slaughtered instead of stampeding into the wilderness where the shepherds have warned them they would be food for the wolves. Except there are no wolves in the wild anymore–they came in from the cold and call themselves shepherds.
The AIP party platform doesn’t actually call for secession anyway.
Excellent answer Jeff.
I think that this should inspire the people here to adopt a new name. I propose “PanSecessionism”, with the stirring motto, ‘Selfrule For All!’.
‘Anarcho-Capitalism’ sounds too much like an arms dealer specialising in shady deals with bomb-throwers!
Pansecessionism, being new, has more appeal. The right of all to secede is implicit in the title. It sounds more positive than decentralism, whilst it keeps its’ policy of returning power to smaller and smaller units. It also includes the best part of anarcho-capitalism, the right to rule your own land!
The USA might have outlawed the right to secede, but I’m not sure about Australia. In 1970, the owner of a farm in Western Australia seceded from that state, and set up his own kingdom, The Principality of Hutt River. It is still there, and has its’ own web site.
What I think the world needs is not another political movement, good though that is, but a global company that promotes secession! Instead of watching Zimbabwe implode, we could be selling them the weapons to be free! And the books to follow! And the solar power kits to empower their own properties! (Like Vogt’s ‘The Weapons Shop’). Does anybody else want to embrace secession, and earn a lot of gold?
best regards from Nick
P.S. Selfrule For All!!!
It isn’t really surprising to find the members of the media so outraged (and isn’t everything an outrage to them?) at the word “secession.” The majority of them have probably never read America’s original document of secession — the Declaration of Independence — nor do they equate what our founders did in 1776 with that “outrageous” word.
It amazes me that people so ignorant of American history could be so arrogant. Then again, it is their staggering level of ignorance, I guess, that allows them to be oblivious to how much they don’t know.
And yet she promises to preserve the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the phrase “one nation… indivisible,” inviolate as “our Founding Fathers” wrote it.
I thought Mitt Romney was a Dan Quayle for the 21st century, but she has him beat.
I am surprised that you are so surprised.
It’s called irredentism and every country suffers from it.
Bit harsh to blame the Press, though. I think you’ll find most people feel it instinctively, even though it’s utterly illogical. Everybody is oh-so-proud of their nation.
One interesting hypothetical point to raise about secession is that even in the seemingly most anti-decentralist scenario, where a gang of fascists want to secede from a “mostly harmless”/minarchist state, it effectively becomes a prison for them. They’ve done “society at large”‘s work for them already.
Comments on this entry are closed.