The Right to Secede

There needs to be a right of secession, recognized by the international community and extended to all people throughout the world. Any community of people anywhere should have the right to hold a plebescite and declare their independence through a majority vote of the population.

The United States and other democratic countries should take the lead in pressuring the U.N. to recognize such a right and to enact it worldwide.

What form would this take? How would this right to secede be exercised, and would a country -- the larger nation of which the seceding region is a part -- have any rightful claim on the smaller territory against the wishes of the population there?

If universal secession is recognized, would there then be thousands of secessionist movements, perhaps even millions, which would then splinter all nations into tiny pieces, thus eliminating nationhood as we know it? Are there some advantages to nationhood which would then be lost, and would civilization be thrown into chaos?

Would all "communities" continue to splinter down to the point where there would be nothing left but individuals, or individual families, and everyone would have to contract with a private army or police force for protection against aggression?

Obviously the principle of secession must have its limits. There is a practical limit to how far secession can go. One individual cannot secede. One block of a neighborhood cannot secede from the country, or from the city.

One first step is to define a minimum size of population, such as 10,000 or 100,000, and grant to any contiguous population of this size the right to secede. But no smaller than this. As a practical matter, some such minimum number must be established. Perhaps the minimum number can later be reduced. In an ideal world, perhaps several hundred or thousand years into the future, there will finally be a world system which allows every single individual the choice to be independent of any state.

For now, let us suppose that the minimum number is set at 500,000 or half a million. Why shouldn't any group of half a million people anywhere on earth, who live in a contiguous geographical region, be free to secede in a plebescite held for all the people of the region?

If need be, the requirement might be that a 2/3 majority of the people must favor secession in order for the vote to be valid. This is a minor detail.

In addition to the matter of the population size, there is also the issue of whether the larger nation has any rights over against that of the seceding territory. Suppose the new small state gains a benefit from some environmental projects, such as a dam, from which it derives arable land, hydroelectric power plants on a river which would not exist except for the dam, or flood control benefits. There might also be national security benefits which it derives from the larger nation.

So a comprehensive secession system would include some procedure for considering any legitimate demands of the larger country from which the smaller region is seceding. It ought to be possible to create a reasonable system for adjudicating such demands and arranging a secession contract or charter which would include the terms of secession.

When the final vote for secession is held, the total terms of the secession would be included in the wording of the ballot measure offered to the voters.

There is a necessity for an international body to play a part in setting the terms of the secession vote. Since both the seceding state and the larger nation have legitimate interests to protect, and each is likely to disregard or minimize the interests of the other side, a third neutral party must be brought into the process to arbitrate the matters in dispute between the two sides.

So the final secession measure presented to voters would be a document drawn up jointly by the secession party, by an agent of the nation from which the smaller territory would secede, and a third neutral international authority, which would probably be a department of the U.N.

With some system like this in place, why should not any "people" anywhere have the right to secede from the larger "nation" they currently belong to? Would this not bring an end to hundreds of conflicts in the world? Would this not resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, most of the conflicts in the Middle East, the problem of the Basques in Spain, of dissidents in Sri Lanka, in Tibet, and so many other places?

In addition to resolving many of these conflicts, it would offer to dissidents in the U.S. and other countries a way to separate into independent colonies which would organize themselves according to any political philosophy of their choosing, as long as they find enough others of the same persuasion and can devise a way to locate enough of their numbers into one contiguous geographical region.

It is important that dissidents have some way to put their particular philosophy into practice, as an experiment, in order to determine whether their visions of the future are realistic and can be put into practice. Many dissident philosophies are unrealistic and will never work if put into practice. But the dissidents continue to promote their ideas even to the point of violent revolution. Also they agitate for costly government programs, and when these are enacted and fail to produce the desired results, the dissidents blame the failure on the half-hearted nature of the programs and so never see the proof that their ideas are unworkable.

There are so many dissident philosophies that it is impossible to put all of them to the test in the United States, or any other one country. The various political schools contradict each other, so that an experiment with one idea contradicts that of an opposing school. For example, one theory is that children (even poor children who can't afford a private school) need to be raised in a God-centered school where prayer and Bible study (or Koran study) are a part of the regular schedule. But another theory is that children need to be left free to form their own beliefs without any religious dogma being spoon-fed to them. Both these theories need to be tested to see which kind of school produces the better results.

What is needed is to allow many small states, hundreds of them, even thousands, which would be independent, or semi-independent, made up of a population who are of the same dissident mindset, so they can enact their dissident theories. This way, the few ideas which are truly practical will have a chance to prove themselves, and the many bad ones will be disproved in practice and will finally be abandoned.

An example of such a dissident state would be a totally free-trade state, which is to say, a state with no tariffs on foreign imports, a state which would unilaterally reject any tariffs and also reject the need for trade agreements and the theory that there must be a "balance of trade" or balance of exports to imports and with this also a rejection of the notion that a society must create "jobs" or protect people's "jobs."

In addition to this, there might also be a totally protectionist state, which virtually prohibits imports in order to "protect" everyone's "jobs" and all the domestic producers, also a libertarian "state" as well as a communist state.

Also there might be various theocracies, and also an atheist state where religion is restricted in the same way that addictive drugs are restricted in most countries. Also an environmentalist state, where no fossil fuel emissions are allowed, no pesticides or fertilizers, etc. Also a "Henry George" state, where the only tax would be a tax on land.

Another form of experimentation would be with prohibitions of certain "vices" such as alcohol, gambling, etc. And also the opposite, where everything is legalized. Let there be a test of legalization vs. prohibition in many different degrees and forms. And also there can be testing of different theories of criminal justice -- more leniency, rehabilitation, etc. vs. more toughness, harsher penalties. Let there be a true test of the death penalty by having one state use the death penalty widely while another state bans it completely. Let us see which society produces a lower crime rate.

And there are many other possibilities, including many odd combinations of the above. Perhaps there is one oddball combination which turns out to produce the best social conditions of all. Let all the dissident theories be experimented with so we finally discover which ones work and which ones do not.

A benefit from this will be that in a society which is failing to produce good results, i.e., its theories are not working, the true believers there will not give up but will try to make changes to produce the better results while not giving up on their basic theories; and so they will come up with new innovative ideas, they will "go back to the drawing board" and keep trying. So if their theory can be made to work somehow, they might eventually discover the way through perseverence and find the solution they need, the magic formula, and then everyone else will learn from this, as the new ideas might be adaptable to the other societies too.

This is not utopian. The concept is simple and practical. Begin a movement to institute the right of secession to all people. Let there be a system of practical steps a secessionist movement must meet, create the criteria and publish them in a manifesto to be promoted for acceptance by the U.N.

There cannot be 100% total freedom or free choice. The key is to increase free choice to people as much as is practical. If 100% independence is not possible, then how about 90%. There can be much more free choice than we have now.


What would be the best possible society?

The best society would probably be the following:

Total free trade.

A high gasoline tax, and high penalties on pollution generally.

A progressive property tax (more total property value means higher tax rate).

Heavy investment in bicycle roads, separate from motor vehicle traffic.

Most major decisions made by grand juries rather than by legislators or presidents/governors.

No welfare to anyone -- rich, poor, or middle class. Or to seniors or handicapped or any other "victims". Or to corporations. Or to farmers. None. Nada. ZILCH! (Let seniors and handicapped serve on grand juries and earn their income.)

A tax on stock market transactions.

Collective bargaining (wage-fixing) illegal the same as price-fixing. No cartels or restraint-of-trade in any form.

No minimum wage or any other fixing of prices, wages, rents, or other values by the government.

Euthanasia legalized. Including termination of deformed infants and of severely mentally retarded.

No costly medical care to anyone at taxpayers' expense.

Free equal education to everyone at taxpayers' expense, including college or vocational school, but no "special ed" for selected (victim) students who supposedly have more "need" than others.

No expensive government programs based on pity toward any victim group, such as seniors, handicapped, laid-off workers, minorities, gays, fat people, short people, left-handers, green-eyed Catholics, etc.

Etc.

Do you have a better political platform/philosophy than the above?

If so, post it here (click the word "comment") or go to my blog on alternative political philosophies: http://www.politicalplatform.blogspot.com/ and post it there.

Also, promote the idea of universal secession. Then, perhaps in a few hundred years, your political platform will eventually get a chance to prove itself.