I understand this, however there is nothing wrong with the strategy of breaking up the leviathan state into smaller units. Would you rather have 50 United States or thousands of Monacos, Singapores, and Hong Kongs?
Au contraire, the city is the most extended group of people that can still share something meaningful: it is the largest community possible, the largest business manageable. But the point is not to secede form the city, rather with the city.
A City seceding from the State is the only realistic prospect that libertarians have (in the short run, business is better but it takes at least 20 years to erect a major company). It can be managed, it can be made business-like, and it would indeed set a great example (think of what Hong Kong did for China).
The State will try to get you back, but do not forget that a major crisis is coming and, especially in Europe secession will be the order of the day a decade from now. If secession cannot be managed within the next 30 years, when a major power vacuum will materialize in the western world, rest assure that it will never be possible again.
Also, Stranger, this action would not be in defiance of the city, but the state. Second, are you implying that the entity we call a city doesn’t have any authority over the individual? Cities pass plenty of laws (zoning, planning, regulation, etc.) and collect local property taxes. Would it be so bad to get rid of all this bureaucracy?
That is irrelevant, you must defeat the state whole before you can set up any smaller unit.
I would agree. If enough liberty minded people moved to a city, they could take over the city council and declare that there would be no penalty for not paying property taxes. Imagine the prosperity! It could also result in enough liberty minded people to allow people to even defy state and federal law, like not getting a license to practice medicine or not get one to open a restaurant.
As some have suggested, I would agree that picking a city in NH may be a better option.
That’s like saying we need to take on the education of the whole world. If that is the case, then there is no hope.
No it isn’t.
I like the idea of a city seceding. This should happen in New Hampshire as already mentioned because of the already existing Free State Project. The city should be located at the coast for access to sea-trade but Manchester should be right also.
So the American Revolutionaries should have defeated the entire British Empire before seceding from the crown?
I don’t think you quite grasp the concept of “secession.”
They did.
No, they didn’t. They just made the costs of governing the colonies so prohibitively high with their little rebellion that the British basically said “screw it, let’s go home.” The same principle will be at play here. We have to make the state believe that it is not worth it to regain control over the city, either economically or through bad PR. Also, the best opportunity to accomplish such a thing would be during an economic crisis like the one that is forthcoming, where the state won’t have the funds to assert its dominance over one dinky rogue city.
They didn’t fight the colonial government. They fought the expeditionary force and its mercenaries.
Did the British state collapse after the American rebellion?
They surrendered.
So did the American rebels have to “defeat the state whole” before they could withdraw from British rule?
YES
I don’t remember the Yankees ever launching an attack against London and crushing their government in order for them to be left alone in the colonies.
They didn’t need to because they surrendered.
Precisely. In other words, they discovered that the costs of governing the colonies outweighed the potential benefits, and they gave up. A group of people in a city that is considering secession can take measures to ensure that the costs of the state reasserting dominance over the city comes at a high cost, and therefore, act as a deterrent. This was my point from the beginning. It doesn’t even have to be military in nature. For instance, a well-directed PR campaign could paint the state in a very negative light if they try to regain control over the city. Or the secession could be undertaken during a time when the state is broke, and can’t finance the retaking of the city.
At no point in this argument do you involve any other actor than the whole state.