Should individuals/groups have the right to secede from the state? (1 Viewer)

[copkiller]

To quote volition:

"The argument for anarchism does not necessarily mean everyone has to live in an Anarcho-Capitalist (AC) town/area, I believe it can be interpreted more as the right to individual secession. For example, you could support the right of other people to secede from the government on their own property, without actually wanting to do it yourself. (eg. just like how a heterosexual person may support the right of homosexuals to marry, even if they have no intention of having a homosexual marriage) So really, all ACists are asking is: If you still choose to be a part of government, that is your choice - but don't force it on other people."

I agree 100%. Even if you think ACs are crazy, shouldn't you at least give them the opportunity to test their alternative system?

If the group wanting to secede pays in full for its own land, and the individuals who move there agree to renounce their citizenship and give up entitlement to any benefits of citizenship that the original state might provide, on what basis can you justify refusing to grant such a right?

 

[Kwayera]

Yeah, sure. Why not.

 

[A High Way Man]

In response, I cite Article 067, from the future United Nations Charter of the Rights of Man, Earth, 2096 AD, the right to go time travel into the past 87 years and lock this thread.

 

[murphyad]

While I disagree with your anarcho-capitalist premises leading to the right to secede, I do think that individuals/groups should have a right to secede from the state, perhaps for other reasons or motivated by other ideologies as well.

 

[copkiller]

While I disagree with your anarcho-capitalist premises leading to the right to secede, I do think that individuals/groups should have a right to secede from the state, perhaps for other reasons or motivated by other ideologies as well.

Absolutely, I wish to grant the same rights to anyone. People should be free to try minarchism, communism, even fascism. Whatever they want, so long as everyone joining the succession movement is a willing participant.

 

[murphyad]

Absolutely, I wish to grant the same rights to anyone. People should be free to try minarchism, communism, even fascism. Whatever they want, so long as everyone joining the succession movement is a willing participant.

Quite true.

Whether it would be a good idea for any or all parties involved, however, is not quite so certain.

 

[copkiller]

Quite true.

Whether it would be a good idea for any or all parties involved, however, is not quite so certain.

Agreed. People would do so at their own risk, and could not come crawling back to the state if they failed as some of them inevitably would.

It would give us a real opportunity to test different ideas in action, rather than the very arrogant, self righteous assumption that democratic nation states are unequivocally superior.

 

[volition]

Speaking of secession, you guys might find this interesting: Principality of Hutt River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - just in case you don't already know about it

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I voted no, but I don't suppose I'd mind if it was a controlled secession. E.g. a group of anarchists wanting to test their ideology out, with a small set of guidelines (e.g. intervention if it turns violent, or to end slavery, etc) which would be designed to minimise the state's interference.

Rather than criminal gangs or rapists unilaterally deciding to secede.

 

[volition]

But anyway, as far as being able to actually secede - I think part of the reason is that when you buy land in most countries, the government does not allow you allodial title - they only actually allow some weaker claim over the property.

I think it comes back to whether or not the government is the legitimate owner of the land in the first place though. And given that land established via conquest is generally stolen land, it's generally illegitimately gained imo. But you know, "Terra Nullius" and all.

Anyway, I think most governments of the world would be too scared to do it, because generally the services they provide are highly inefficient and allow public sector workers to have cushy (at least relatively), secure jobs and good pensions. If you're currently getting a 'free ride' because you don't have to work hard to get tax money from people - then why would you just allow competition and lose all that? So of course they wouldn't allow it.

 

[copkiller]

I voted no, but I don't suppose I'd mind if it was a controlled secession. E.g. a group of anarchists wanting to test their ideology out, with a small set of guidelines (e.g. intervention if it turns violent, or to end slavery, etc) which would be designed to minimise the state's interference.

Well its not really a succession if its controlled to such an extent. If the government has a responsibility to end all violence or slavery that occurs outside its borders, why doesn't it do this now?

Rather than criminal gangs or rapists unilaterally deciding to secede.

I don't believe this would happen, since criminal gangs are largely dependent on the state criminalizing victimless behavior like drug taking and prostitution. But suppose a group of violent criminals did decide to voluntarily secede, wouldn't ridding the state of these criminals be beneficial?

 

[volition]

Another consideration with secession is whether or not you would allow an ACist to secede in the middle of Sydney, where there would be many non ACists also living in the area. I think this aspect of it is also important because the ACist shouldn't necessarily have to move to one huge block of land out in WA or wherever, they should be able to secede wherever they own land now.

The fact that there might be people who freeride off government provided 'services' is a flaw in the government business model, it's not the problem of the ACist who doesn't wish to pay for/receive the supposed benefit. (eg. 'national security'provided for by the government) With freeriding, at the end of the day, there are ways that businesses can find to exclude the benefits to non-paying customers and these will just be discovered and used. That is, once the government allows competition in these areas where it currently (effectively) denies true free market competition such as roads, national defence, police/security, schooling.

 

[copkiller]

Another consideration with secession is whether or not you would allow an ACist to secede in the middle of Sydney, where there would be many non ACists also living in the area. I think this aspect of it is also important because the ACist shouldn't necessarily have to move to one huge block of land out in WA or wherever, they should be able to secede wherever they own land now.

The fact that there might be people who freeride off government provided 'services' is a flaw in the government business model, it's not the problem of the ACist who doesn't wish to pay for/receive the supposed benefit. (eg. 'national security'provided for by the government) With freeriding, at the end of the day, there are ways that businesses can find to exclude the benefits to non-paying customers and these will just be discovered and used. That is, once the government allows competition in these areas where it currently (effectively) denies true free market competition such as roads, national defence, police/security, schooling.

Well I think what you outlined should be allowed, but it never would be.

Purchasing land in a more remote area would also be beneficial because it would allow us to show how much more prosperous the AC society would be than a comparable state.

However, even this is too much of a threat to the power of governments, which is why they will never allow it to happen. If a small AC society existed in the Northern Terroritory, who would be attracted to it? Workers and entrepreneurs, particularly those on high incomes in the private sector. Those that rely on income from welfare (including corporate welfare) and useless, cushy public sector jobs would of course remain in Australia.

So Australia's tax revenues would fall significantly (even if only 100 000 or so people left, remember the pool of productive workers is quite small) yet its expenses would remain high. Once succession was allowed nation states would probably be forced to at least move towards minarchism to be able to compete.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

In principle, yes, to *some* extent, I think individuals/groups should have the right to secede from the state. However, in terms of practicality, I disagree. What if someone decided to do so, committed murder and then claimed to be free of state jurisdiction because of their secession?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Absolutely, so long as they keep to themselves and don't threaten the lifestyle of the sane people who remain behind in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Ayatollah]

Dear Sir,
No one is stopping you from going of into the desert to create your own little satanist society, I mean, you clearly hate civilisation, so why dont you just go pack up some of your 'i hate the world' death-metal albums, put on your black hoody, clasp your '1984' text, and head on out the door?
Conspirisits like you fail to realise 'the goverment' is merely a collection hard working, well intentioned individuals who have families of their own, and are not interested in 'putting chips in your brain' while you sleep etc.
Our goverment is democratically elected, and plays a vital role in redistributing wealth, allocating resources, providing public goods, negotiating international affairs, etc....again, these things are done not by a group of stalinist autocrats, but ordinary human beings.
This sickening ideal, whereby you and your fellow rapists, 'run free', so to speak, is the product of mis-placed 'convict blooded' teenaged angst. Seedy internet forums have a monopoly on these disturbed mutterings and sociapathic ravings for good reason. We wish to take no part in your hate rape vigilante fantansies, indulge such things, by yourself, in the desert, away from others.

 

[murphyad]

I fear you are soon to be torn to shreds.

 

[xeuyrawp]

People would do so at their own risk, and could not come crawling back to the state if they failed as some of them inevitably would.

So they're prisoners?

I just wonder what your practical model would be, to be honest.

 

[volition]

I fear you are soon to be torn to shreds.

Referring to Ayatollah? Nah, obvious troll/not worth wasting time on

 

[Ayatollah]

Did I crush your sad little fantasies?
truth hurts, doesnt it?