The smallest unit of government is the individual. The three fundamental rights of the individual are Life, Liberty, and Property. This is the basis of self-government, the right of the individual to govern their own life, liberty, and property. The moment government extends beyond the individual, a social contract is made. For instance, perhaps two neighbors agree to a land sale. They make a contract to exchange one form of property (land) for another (other commodity, money). Carried further, individuals who live in a certain city de facto agree to live by the laws of that city, so long as they are residents. Carried further yet, citizens of a state or nation agree to abide by the laws of that nation, so long as they live there. This is not to say that citizens cannot try to change the laws, only that they generally agree to abide by them. Now the right of individual secession is generally accepted at the lower levels of government. No US town would consider a law that forbids its residents from moving to another town. Extending this further, it is not unheard of for a section of a town to secede from their parent town to form a new social contract amongst the residents of that section. In fact, it is not unheard of in US history for whole counties to secede from their parent States. Another example of individual autonomy is the right of an individual to leave their parent nation to live, and become a citizen of, another nation. In all these examples, the right of individuals and small communities to secede from their parent town, State, or nation has been guaranteed. No free person would restrict the right of another free person not contractually bound to do otherwise from breaking free from the political confines of one system to join those of another or no other. … but then theres the Union. It is interesting that our society – having been given birth by a fight to secede from of foreign power is so opposed to the right of any particular member of the Union (except individuals) to break free from that Union. Given the right of individuals and communities to secede from the State, it should also be allowed for the State to secede from the Union. Secession in the United States has a long and storied history apart from the Civil War. There are currently almost as many secessionist movements in the United States as there are States. [link edited for length] Membership in the Union should have more advantages to the State than drawbacks. For instance, being a member of the Union may free a State from the hassles of printing a currency, foreign affairs managements, and may benefit in terms of free trade with other Union members and providence for a common defense. If membership in the Union, however, becomes detrimental to the State and its People, it is an obligation of the State to sever its ties to the Union just as the 13 Original Colonies did in 1776. In the end, the right of secession is justified by the right of individual secession and by extension the right of individuals organized into groups to declare said group independent from the Union at large. To believe anything else, usurps the right of the individual to organize into a group (a violation of their right to free association) and to act on the needs of that group. So what about rebellion? Does the fact that a gang of gun-toting weirdos has seized control of Main Street County, USA preclude the State and/or Union from taking action? Quite simply, NO. Rebellion can be discerned from secession by virtue of the proportion of participants. Rightful secession being defined by the will of the majority – or preferably greater proportion – to separate from the social contracts that bind them to the State or Union. Any number less than that supporting the uprising is inherently opposed to the will of the People, and thereby illegal. This whole idea of rebellion vs secession raises a whole host of issues that cannot be adequately addressed in this column. For instance, what is the proper majority for an issue so serious as secession? Simple majority, 2/3, 3/4? Such guidelines should be set prior to the formation of contract. For instance, if the Constitution had stated that anything less than a majority for secession would be considered insurrection, then at least there would be a Constitutional means to justify a course of action (such as the US Civil War) that was approved by representatives of the citizens prior to joining the Union. Perhaps States should not be allowed to leave the Union will-nilly, but at least there should be some way out if it is in their best interests. Imagine a world of legalized secession. Too often minority groups of a given state are made slaves to the tyranny of the majority (power). Imagine how blessed Palestinians would be if they could simply secede from Israel? Imagine how blessed Israel would be, for that matter. What if Kurds could secede from Iraq? Basque from Spain? Lakota from the US? Tibet from China? Boer from South Africa? Chiapas from Mexico? These movements exist as a result of the suffering of a people in a particular region at the hands of a larger, more powerful political source. To do anything less than allow for regions and peoples to break free from the political ties that bind them to repressive regimes, is to abandon the fundamental rights we possess as human beings, for no better reason than because we exist and deserve self-rule. Stated as such, there is no defensible reason not to allow for the right of secession by members of a Union, from said Union
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 06:49:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015