Envisioning secession

Miscellaneous General
1

Professor Hoppe has suggested that perhaps the best route to a free society founded on the natural order is secession. In one article I remember reading (can’t find the cite right now, sorry), he even went so far as to suggest that San Francisco might be the sort of place in which secession could be a real possibility. It has the advantage of being a coastal port city with a strong culture of anti-establishment mores.

I have been thinking about this idea of micro-secession for some time. Since government is publicly-funded plunder, the essence of government is avarice, envy. A good example is the European Commission’s bizarre and arbitrary multi-billion Euro fine levied against Intel for “anti-competitive behavior”. In reality, the EC is simply plundering Intel in exchange for the opportunity to sell things within the boundaries of its influence. “If you want to sell here, you better pay for the privilege.”

Now, let’s switch over to the city of North Oaks, Minnesota. This is a former gated community which is 100% privately owned, including the city streets. To my knowledge, all the “public” services, such as street maintenance, utilities, and so on, are handled contractually, rather than through the ad hoc “government” process followed in ordinary municipalities. The homeowner’s association is, in my opinion, the closest thing to a “natural order society” that I can think of. North Oaks, MN takes this to the scale of a small city.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that SF did secede and followed the model of North Oaks with full privatization of all services within its boundaries. Most importantly, law and security would be privatized. I think most people on this forum would agree with Hoppe that the prosperity of such a society would be so overwhelming that a primary problem facing its inhabitants would be the problem of deciding who may or may not come within its boundaries, that is, the immigration problem.

But another problem, just as large or larger than the problem of immigration, would be the problem of plunder by the surrounding social states. The political entity which had formerly claimed SF as part of “its territory” would seek to again reassert its “claims” and would work tirelessly to create a pretext for this (the possibilities are endless… just claim that money laundering, tax evasion, drugs, prostitution, human trafficking etc. are being produced in the free zone). It would likely amass its troops and naval vessels around the seceded territory in preparation for assault to convince the inhabitants of the territory to “voluntarily rejoin” the larger political union so they can be taxed and regulated like everyone else.

If the free zone is to continue existing in the face of this aggression, it must organize some way to control ingress and egress from the territory and it must organize some way to defend its borders from military aggression. Lastly, while law would be privatized within the borders of the seceded free zone, individuals and entities within the free zone would still be faced with the problem of legal issues with outsiders whose sovereign law systems largely do not cognize free market arbitration arrangements.

So, we have at least three features of traditional governments which need to be replaced, so to speak: border control, regional defense and “international” dispute resolution. In Hoppe’s view, private insurers would take the role of funding defense measures in a natural order society. But the outcome of a seceded free zone is so certain that who would be foolish enough to insure any assets within it? So, an-cap defense, as Hoppe envisions it, is out the door. And who owns “the border”? The “SF Landowner’s Association” might be a fully-contractual analogue of the North Oaks HOA that manages, as part of its charter, border security. But if some private organization was contracted to defend the border, it would acquire the capacity to determine who may enter and leave and, thereby, garner all the powers of traditional government to monopolize through exclusion (for example, it could charge Intel billions for the “privilege” of shipping products across the border, maybe disguised as some BS “anti-competition” finding against Intel). Maybe the SF LOA (Landowner’s Association) would retain some other security company as a “praetorian guard” to protect the governing body against such aggressive actions on the part of whatever security company it contracts to protect the border. In any case, the potential for crossover into territorial monopolization of law and security (public, socialized government) seems to me to be very large.

Anyway, I just wanted to spark a discussion to see how people envision various possibilities unfolding. It’s all purely speculative, we won’t likely see any such developments in our lifetimes, but it’s still fun.

Clayton -

2

A bunch of liberty minded people move to New Hampshire, they stop paying taxes, the government tries a bunch of things, but in the end gives up. Everyone else stops paying taxes. Government collapses in New Hampshire. The U.S. government sends in bureaucrats, everyone ignores them. They also try a bunch of things, but in the end give up. Everyone in the United States stops paying taxes, the U.S. government collapses. Everyone else in the world realizes they are not slaves and stop paying too. Within a few short years of the people in New Hampshire not paying taxes, the world is freed from government.

3

North Oaks still has a town government. It would be interesting to see the legal arguments the county and/or state government would make if North Oaks decided to fully dispense with its government and privatize everything.

North Oaks also seems to show that a small-scale approach is the best. Stealth secession, or at least as least noticieable as possible, seems like it would have a better chance of succeeding than large-scale and overt actions. And the process would have to be gradual. I wonder how American Indian nations could play into the secession movement, anybody know of the status of the Lakota secessionist movement?

4

Government sends in bureaucrats with guns to throw people in jail who don’t recognize the authority of the government. Informants are also hired by the government to create dissension among the various liberty movement groups. Liberty movement groups are pushed by agent provocateurs to engage in attacks on government buildings or individuals associated with the government; thereby discreditng them in the eyes of most people. The chaos in New Hampshire creates a sense of fear and panic; and a strongman uses the opportunity to offer the public a Devil’s Bargain. Most people accept it, some flee, and those who stay and take action are quickly rounded up, subjected to torture, and liquidated. Folks at the Mises Institute are either rounded up and killed outright or are forced under threat of death to renounce their beliefs in a show trial before being publically executed.

5

We may. People have outlived the Soviet Union and global communist movement. Right now, we’re at such a fast pace (that is exponentially increasing) of social and technological development, I could see secessionist states in the next 40 or 50 years. I don’t know that I will live that long, but some here may.

I think all three of your concerns are related to security.

We so often forget that security is not merely the show or use of force, but also negotiation. Security is a market exchange, where both parties have to settle on acceptable costs to achieve what they want from the other party without conflict.

Instead of being concerned necessarily about the specific models or provisions of these market exchanges, I think it is vitally important that we continue to educate others regarding the fallacy of security as a natural monopoly. When that understanding becomes pervasive, then people will begin testing different models.

6

I like this story very much. propaganda/media will be so important. (As a defensive weapon to keep the big guns away)

7

Yeah, the FSP seems boneheaded to me. I’m open to be persuaded otherwise. I think that it underestimates the extent to which anti-libertarian sentiment throughout the rest of the world affects the ability of those who are libertarian-minded to live in peace.

Clayton -

8

Although I doubt that the event I envision to happen within our lifetimes will lead to greater liberty, I do believe that secession in Spain (namely Cataluña) is a very real possibility. Not only has separatist activism increased since the recession, but Spain’s road to bankruptcy has accentuated the possibility to the degree that even Catalán government (Generalitat) officials have asked loud seperatist voices (like that of Joan Laporta, president of FC Barcelona) to quiet down.

9

ClaytonB, have you read Guido Hülsmann’s article “Secession and the Production of Defense” in Myth of National Defense (large pdf)? It’s an excellent discussion of secession and guerrilla warfare.

10

Exactly! Leviathan has, by and large, grown organically and slowly. But two can play that game. [;)]

I have thought that the Native American or other oppressed/colonized groups who were once sovereign in recent memory probably have the best chances at challenging Leviathan. The only problem with the Lakota is that they are land-locked. This is not as problematic as it once was but it’s still pretty important. If there were a coastal Lakota with a natural harbor… holy crap, I think that would be just the right recipe for success.

Clayton -

11

Yes, but there would still be a government in place and I imagine the Catalan separtists would maintain a high level of integration with the EU. That’s much less of a threat than an actual threat to the concept of government itself.

The best approach seems to be to focus on small area, maybe focus on just part of New Hampshire for example, create private communities but agree to pay state and federal taxes for the time being.

There are too many people with a vested interest in the state for secession to work at this moment.

12

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!

13

San Marino, Andorra, Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein are landlocked. I could see something like the Republic of Lakotah becoming a sort of off-shore banking place; but the federal government would bully them until they broke.

14

That’s exactly my point. The port is everything because it means the surrounding territory has to actually impose a blockade which is a fairly extreme measure which can be combated with careful management of public perceptions (i.e. propaganda). IOW, if you have a port, then it’s just a matter of keeping up a positive image in “the world”, i.e., maneuvering in a manner such that the opinion-molding class can’t be turned against you, at least, not without being bought up.

Clayton -

15

You’re thinking too small and too broad at the same time. You don’t need an entire city to secede, you just need to hold enough leverage on the state that it can’t coerce you into doing anything. Then you can live anywhere you want and no can touch you, no one can blockade you and no one can arrest you.

16

Good luck with getting enough leverage on the state. The state might not decide to blockade or arrest you for the time being, especially if you have a media presence, but they will work to undermine you. Either through informants or busing parasitical individuals into your territory. A state would likely shy away from a Waco style approach, but a long campaign of disinformation, informants, developing mistrust within the community, agent provocateurs etc would make any hope of effective secession to be limited.

17

Well, unfortunately for most of us, “you just need to hold enough leverage on the state that it can’t coerce you into doing anything” basically means “you just need to be rich.” While there is inevitably a correlation between wealth and personal liberty, the primary problem with modern society is the State per se, that is, the coercive monopoly on law and security. People like myself without enough capital to afford the elaborate tax-escape schemes and the liberty to live in any country of choice are stuck with the tyranny of the local State’s law+security monopoly. I don’t think a State monopoly on law and security is inevitable. In other words, I believe that the world can really be much freer than it is, even for those of us without sufficient capital to play the shell games necessary to escape the shackles of the State.

Just like no one individual can produce a pencil, I don’t believe any one individual is actually capable of creating his own “sovereign territory”, so to speak. It requires a multitude of skilled individuals working together (primarily for their own, individual advancement) to create any community, let alone a community in which individual liberty is possible. I agree with your sentiment that it is ultimately up to each individual to look out for his/her own welfare by whatever morally justifiable means they can but I don’t agree that that is the freest realizable world. [:)]

Clayton -

18

In that case, why would it be easier to overturn that monopoly only in San Francisco as opposed to everywhere at once?

19

Good article. I especially enjoyed these quotes:

“Let us notice in this context that even if I rejected a government only in thought and obeyed it merely out of prudence, this would already be “originary secession” since my brains are undoubtedly part of my property. The government would then no longer control my thoughts, and its control of my behavior would also be diminished.”

Originary secession! Woohoo!

“Why do the citizens choose subjection? Because in their opinion this is the right, or at any rate the best, thing to do under present circumstances. Ideas or opinions that justify the existence of hegemonic bonds are therefore the ultimate foundation of political power.”

However, I don’t see the problem of secession and gradual formation of more liberal societies as primarily a military problem. In my view, it is first and foremost a legal problem, that is, the issue of primary importance is breaking the legal monopoly, rather than the security monopoly. There is definitely an interaction between the legal and security monopolies as can be seen by the intimacy between the local police and court jurisdiction. However, breaking the legal monopoly automatically breaks the security monopoly as, in the Hoppean view, the security monopoly can only exist by virtue of the legal monopoly. Breaking the security monopoly first runs all the risks of devolution into a new plundering state as Hulsmann notes in his article and, more importantly, it provides limitless opportunities for the established political order to smear the secessionists, witness Ruby Ridge, Waco, FLDS, ad nauseum. Breaking the legal monopoly, however, is much more easily painted in terms of peaceful, non-violent resistance or civil disobedience.

Breaking both the legal and security monopolies first presupposes, as Hulsmann also notes in the article, an ideological foundation on the rights of individuals to settle their disputes in the forum of their own choice. To this end, the foremost effort of libertarian scholars, in my view, should be to promulgate this idea into the public. Until people begin to question why we must accept only the State’s courts as the forum for resolution of private disputes, there is no chance of breaking the legal monopoly. And until we begin putting cracks in the legal monopoly, there is not the slightest chance of resisting the security monopoly, even through direct, guerilla resistance.

Clayton -

20

Well, note that the scenario I put forward in the OP is fanciful, I don’t think it could occur starting from present conditions. I think that the precondition for breaking the State’s monopoly on law and security is a global liberalization of ideas and attitudes, especially regarding cross-border trade and the production of law and security. In real terms, this likely means that the best we can expect in the short-term are relatively weak measures such as dissolution of currently strong unions into smaller territorial units. If the process of political disunification continues, it could naturally create the conditions in which a “competitive law society”, such as the fanciful scenario in the OP, could seceded and continue its existence.

To summarize, I think it’s impossible for a lone slave to secure his own freedom when surrounded by slaves who accept and embrace their own enslavement. His self-emancipation will be regarded by his fellow slaves as an act of arrogance and an affront to the other slaves. They will act, of their own accord, to turn him into the slave owner. The only route to emancipation is for an enlightenment to occur among the whole body of slaves such that a committed minority could emancipate themselves without fear of determined retribution from the remaining majority of slaves controlled by the slave owner(s). This slightly exaggerates the state of affairs in the world today but I think the essence of the social dynamics at work are almost exactly identical to this scenario. To be free, I must convince my neighbors that they ought to be free, as well. Only when a sufficient number of them (at least a significant minority) begin to question their slave status will it be possible to openly discuss emancipation (from the legal/security monopoly and its attendant tax regime).

Clayton -