MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Secede’

Now Is a Great Time for California to Secede

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2025

Rather, the United States is today held together only by an intricate system of federal patronage. The federal government, using taxpayer money, essentially pays people to make sure they remain attached to, and dependent on, the central government. For example, the federal welfare state has been fabulously successful at making a large portion of the population hooked on the government’s social benefits.

In a recent article on Trump’s call for annexing Canada, I noted that adding Canada to the US would be like adding a second California. Such an annexation would greatly shift American political ideology to the left and import millions of new voters who favor policies like government-controlled healthcare and draconian gun-control measures.

California secession would work in the opposite direction. By placing California outside the borders of the United States, the US would free itself from millions of voters who, like Canadians, generally favor high taxation, runaway government spending, stringent gun control, and harsh government regulations of nearly every kind.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/now-great-time-california-secede

Mises WireRyan McMaken

The issue of California secession isn’t going away.

Last week, the California secretary of state approved a new ballot measure on secession for the signature gathering phase of the initiative process. If activists are able to collect enough signatures by late July, voters in 2028 will be able to vote yes or no to the question “Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?”

A majority vote for this measure wouldn’t sever ties with the United States government, of course. It would merely create a commission to study the option of political independence.

Even if the measure managed to get a majority vote, it would do little, legally speaking. On the other hand, it certainly would continue a political and ideological process that is a necessaryalbeit insufficient—condition for eventual separation.

The issue of redrawing California’s borders has arisen repeatedly over the past twenty years., Whether we’re talking the “Six Californias” attempt to break the state up into smaller pieces, or the 2017 “Calexit” campaign, talk of radical change to California’s status quo isn’t going away. This repetition of calls for change is essential to laying the ground work for eventual secession. Each new campaign in itself has few implications for the short term, but in longer term, pushing the option over and over does make secession more likely. After all, as we’ve seen in the dozens of successful cases of secession since 1945, an important first step is thinking in terms of separateness and independence.

California Secession Would Be Great for “Rump America”

Unfortunately, we are only at the beginning of a long process, but most of us who presently reside in the tax farm called “the United States” would be much better off if California were to secede as soon as possible. 

Now, I know that many of my readers are not big fans of California—or at least the politicians elected by the people there—and are not inclined to cheer on the state’s political activists. Nonetheless, for those of us who actually want to improve prospects for greater freedom and less state power in North America, we ought to wholeheartedly support secession for California.

The immediate benefits should be clear. In a recent article on Trump’s call for annexing Canada, I noted that adding Canada to the US would be like adding a second California. Such an annexation would greatly shift American political ideology to the left and import millions of new voters who favor policies like government-controlled healthcare and draconian gun-control measures.

California secession would work in the opposite direction. By placing California outside the borders of the United States, the US would free itself from millions of voters who, like Canadians, generally favor high taxation, runaway government spending, stringent gun control, and harsh government regulations of nearly every kind. American politics would shift much more in favor of free markets, relative fiscal restraint, and public safety. California’s 52 members of the House of Representatives would be eliminated from the US Congress, as would be the state’s two senators. Most of these, of course, are dedicated social democrats of the Kamala Harris variety. The political and ideological status quo among America’s elected officials would be transformed overnight.

This would by no means change the US into a laissez-faire paradise, but the positive change would be immense.

Moreover, California residents would cease to be US citizens, and thus would no longer be eligible to vote in US elections. No longer would residents of nearby regions like Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, and Texas have to suffer waves of Californian migrants who are free to recreate the disastrous political realities of California in new locations.

The damage done by these migrant Californians is magnified by the fact that, so long as California is part of the United States, a Californian’s citizenship seamlessly transfers to the new state. That is, Californian migrants are able to almost immediately participate in the political system in their adopted homes—to the disadvantage of longtime residents. After California secedes, this unfortunate situation would come to an end, and Californians would become foreign nationals when living in the “Old United States.” No longer would the corporatist Silicon Valley “elites”—most of whom are dedicated servants of the surveillance state—and the retired civil “servants” of California, living on fat pensions, be able to so easily hijack the political institutions of non-Californians.

Nor would these foreign nationals from California be eligible for the welfare state of Rump America. After all, without California policymakers present to block every attempt at reforming the US’s broken system of naturalization, Americans would be free to ensure that foreign nationals no longer receive free money from the taxpayers. Rather, only migrants who are able to support themselves would find it feasible to relocate to the Old United States.

This isn’t to say that no one from California would be welcome. Without the opportunity to live on the dole, and without immediate access to the benefits of citizenship, it is likely only the most motivated and industrious Californians would seek to emigrate to Rump America. The minority of Californians who actually value freedom and fiscal sanity, and who are capable of leaving other people alone, should be welcomed with open arms in Rump America.

Secession Is the Future

Admittedly, this is all unlikely to happen in the short term. A response one often hears from those who reflexively defend the status quo is “it will never happen.” But in the world of politics, “never” is an absurdly long time. One can consult any political map of the world as it was 100 years ago to see just how non-permanent political institutions are. Rather, political disintegration of the United States is inevitable. It happens to every large state eventually, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s as only one recent example. In the late 1980s, most of these prophets of what will “never happen” also told us that the USSR would last for many generations more. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Let Staten Island Secede!

Posted by M. C. on September 7, 2023

As the New York Post reported this week, “Local GOP state Assemblyman Michael Tannousis told The Post the area was ‘blindsided’ by the new shelter, leading to stronger opposition. ‘I found out about this location when it was already out in the newspaper,’ he said, adding the city previously denied to him they were going to house migrants there.”

https://mises.org/wire/let-staten-island-secede

Ryan McMaken

Homeless foreign nationals (i.e., “illegal aliens”) began arriving last week at a makeshift shelter in a Staten Island neighborhood. The arrivals come after New York City Mayor Eric Adams decided that a shuttered Catholic school on Staten Island would be used to house some of the more than 100,000 migrants who have arrived in New York City since the spring of 2022. 

Staten Islanders, however, were given no veto and no role in determining the location of the shelter or what policies might be implemented there. As a result, hundreds of protestors this week assembled to express their opposition to the plan which was apparently hatched in secret and only revealed to Staten Island residents when the plan was already fait accompli. As the New York Post reported this week, “Local GOP state Assemblyman Michael Tannousis told The Post the area was ‘blindsided’ by the new shelter, leading to stronger opposition. ‘I found out about this location when it was already out in the newspaper,’ he said, adding the city previously denied to him they were going to house migrants there.”

It’s easy to see why the policymakers who run New York City haven’t bothered to ask neighborhood representatives if they want a migrant shelter in their neighborhood. The residents of Staten Island, who tend to lean more politically conservative than other in other regions of the city, are easily outnumbered by hardline social-democrat residents of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and other boroughs. When it comes to city-wide politics, in other words, Staten Islanders don’t matter, so the city government in Manhattan does what it wants with Staten Island’s resources, and to Staten Island’s residents.

How one feels about migrants, however, is irrelevant in answering the question of whether or not the half-million residents of Staten Island ought to be allowed self-determination in matters that clearly and deeply affect matters in their own neighborhoods and businesses. The New York Post reports:

Staten Islanders are renewing calls for a breakaway from the Big Apple — with Mayor Eric Adams’ controversial call to bus migrants to a local shuttered Catholic school proving to be the latest breaking point.

One local pol even has an idea for the independent borough’s new slogan: “Nonsicut tu quoque,” City Councilman Joe Borelli told The Post.

It roughly translates to, “We don’t like you either.”

Staten Island has always been an odd fit within the five boroughs, sitting on the outskirts of New York City with a predominantly conservative Republican population that butts heads with the rest of the city. 

Unfortunately, the borough faces many uphill challenges in seceding. Both the NYC City Council and the state legislature would need to approve the move. 

The Post continues: 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

3 Things to Remember on Independence Day | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2023

Who can say with confidence that if the US government were wiped away today, that it would not be replaced with something even worse? Under such circumstances, we must never abandon the important work of laying the foundations first for a revolution in ideas.

https://mises.org/wire/3-things-remember-independence-day

Ryan McMaken

It’s difficult to say what most Americans commemorate or celebrate on Independence Day nowadays. Many appear to focus on some vague notion of “America.” Others even take to jingoism equating the United States government with the very notion of “freedom.” 

Lost in all of this is the fact that the Declaration of Independence — the document we’re supposed to remember today — is a document that promotes secession, rebellion, and what the British at the time regarded as treason. 

On the other hand, those who do recall the radical nature of the Declaration often tend to romanticize the American Revolution in a way that is neither instructive nor helpful today. 

So, what should we remember about Independence Day, and what can it teach us? For starters, here are three things about the history and context of this holiday that should continue to inform us today and into the future. 

One: If You Can’t Secede, You’re Not Really Free

The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence lays it out. Sometimes, “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” 

The document then goes on to list in detail why 1776’s specific act of secession was justified and necessary for preserving the rights of the colonists. 

By the 19th century, this philosophy of self-determination would become a foundational element of the ideology now known internationally as liberalism — or “classical liberalism” in the United States. 

Not surprisingly, we find this idea in the later writings of liberals such as Ludwig von Mises who, writing in Vienna in 1927, concluded:

It must always be possible to shift the boundaries of the state if the will of the inhabitants of an area to attach themselves to a state other than the one to which they presently belong has made itself clearly known…

[W]henever the inhabitants of a particular territory … make it known … that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time … their wishes are to be respected and complied with.

Mises, like Jefferson, understood that without this right of self-determination, there is no freedom.

Nevertheless, modern opponents of self-determination and secession will claim that secession cannot be tolerated because it is not “legal.”

This is scarcely relevant. After all, the colonial uprising against the King was not “legal,” and it hardly matters whether political victors consider any breakaway secession movements legal. Times and societies change, and nothing is forever or written in stone. 

For Mises, secession must be tolerated for pragmatic reasons. It is “the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.” But For Jefferson, as for his fellow secessionists, it was a moral imperative, whether “treasonous” or not. 

Two: Independence Day Is Not a Military Holiday 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Dear Biden Supporters, It’s Not Too Late to Secede | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 20, 2020

https://mises.org/wire/dear-biden-supporters-its-not-too-late-secede?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=0254be8c54-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-0254be8c54-228343965

Justin Murray

Four years ago, I wrote an open letter to the dismayed supporters of Hillary Clinton in the wake of her loss to Donald Trump. Before celebrating Biden’s win in this year’s election, it’s important to reflect back on the past four years. Remember your frustration, your anger, your fear of someone you believed was unhinged and dangerous being in control of all of the immense powers that are now vested with the federal government of the United States of America. Now ask yourselves this: Do you want that to happen again?

Despite the Biden victory, the Democrat Party at the time of this writing not only failed to change the makeup of the Senate, they lost ground in the House and even lost a governor to the Republicans. Further, the Biden win was not delivered by an outpouring of support by the coveted minority demographics, which Trump won in larger numbers across every ethnic category compared to the prior election, including an astounding doubling of the LGBTQ vote, but by a shift in the voting patterns of white men. Couple this with the complete lack of any real enthusiasm for the prospect of a Biden presidency, and it’s apparent that the Democrat president-elect didn’t win on the strength of the Democrat platform but because enough people were put off by President Trump’s abrasive behavior.

In other words, the Blue Wave not only failed to manifest, it turned into a slightly lower tide.

Because of these trends, short of something major happening over the next four years or the Republicans nominating another Donald Trump–style candidate, a Biden presidency is looking to be a one and done, with a Republican likely finding his way back to office in 2025.

But why is it I’m here, raining on your parades? Simple, it’s to give you advice on how to blunt the pain of this inevitability.

Decentralize

The best way to remove the pain of a future political opponent controlling the machine is to shut down the machine. And by this I mean radically decentralize. As it stands, very little done at the level of DC cannot be done, and done better, at the state level. As it stands, most federal spending is little more than collecting taxes from states and sending it back with instructions on how to use it. Nothing needs to be recreated since the state organs manage the day-to-day operation of all the various programs, and there would be an immediate benefit once the federal bureaucracy has been removed from the equation. All they’re doing, after all, is tumbling the money the state could collect directly itself and skimming off the expenses for all the bureaucrats.

For example, Social Security can be handled by the individual states. Despite the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) claims to the contrary, Social Security is entirely bankrupt and has no assets beyond promises to tax future workers to cover claims, either directly through the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) taxes or through the general fund via the Treasury bonds it claims as assets. Since the assets are fake IOUs, there isn’t anything to transfer back to the individual States. The only difference between the current method and a state-run method is that the tax collection is no longer funneled through a federal-level agency.

Further, by decentralizing, individual states would no longer be at the whims of an unfavored politician’s decisions in Washington. For instance, if the federal government didn’t have a Department of Fish and Wildlife and didn’t have a Bureau of Land Management owning vast tracts of land in states like Washington, the recent stress over the removal of the gray wolf from the federal endangered species listing wouldn’t exist. Certainly, the states could maintain protection of the wolf on state lands, but these laws are not applicable to federal lands. By closing the US Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management and returning all the federal lands to the states, Washington could better manage and protect the gray wolf population without having to hope for a friendly administration roughly twenty-five hundred miles away to agree with them.

From a strategic standpoint, Biden could easily do this, as he could force Republicans to accept these small-government proposals to maintain the illusion that they’re supporters of a small federal government and states’ rights. A Democrat president and Republican Senate is a perfect setup for this as Republicans will be forced to agree to maintain their position as small-government proponents (despite immediately abandoning it when in power).

Why, in other words, would you want some future administration not friendly toward your interests controlling the current government, let alone some future expansion you’ve dreamed about with a Biden presidency? Instead of asking him to push for universal healthcare or vast federal law enforcement reforms, why not demand he eliminate that interference from DC so you can easily do it yourself at home? These new agencies will just end up in the hands of a Republican president within the next decade.

Consider Secession

The problem with decentralization is that anything decentralized can be easily centralized again. Closing the Department of Homeland Security or the Drug Enforcement Agency could just be a mere speed bump when a future administration deigns to build them back up again. A much more permanent solution would be to secede from the Union and go it as an independent nation. This way, residents of California, with their lopsided support of Biden, aren’t going to have to hope that their preferred candidate isn’t tainted by the corruption by party members in Pennsylvania. Californians also wouldn’t have to rely on the unlikely prospect of a uniquely unlikable candidate like Donald Trump driving a large percentage of the electorate to the Dems in Wisconsin. Rather, by seceding, with the blessings of a friendly president, the states along the Pacific Coast and in the Northeast can safely insulate themselves from fickle Ohio and Arizona voters who can easily swing national elections to the other party.

The United States is already uniquely situated for a clean split as governance structures exist at the State level. As noted above, States are already handling nearly everything done at the DC level, so the institutions exist to handle this. Breaking up into ten to twelve different nations would not only be a relatively smooth process, it would lead to a happy electorate, as they’re no longer having to compete with culturally different people all over the continent for central policy. California will no longer have to hope that a friendly administration in DC will keep high-speed rail funded while losing the local funding it could have used to the federal maw.

Further, this idea is no longer a radical notion pushed by a few Texans or weird “The South Shall Rise Again” types. It’s gaining traction on all segments of the political spectrum, so it will be just that much easier to gain agreement on a mutual split.

A Golden Opportunity

Biden supporters, this is your opportunity. Instead of endeavoring to gain a short-term endorphin rush of winning, you should push for either radical decentralization or full secession. By doing so, you’ll set yourself up to never have to worry about a Donald Trump coming to power and save yourself another four to eight years of heartache and stress. Can you imagine a world where you’ll never have to worry about a Republican taking over again? That world is not possible if you insist on growing federal power and keeping the Union intact. If anything, that will only make the next Republican administration that much more unbearable for you to live under. Author:

Justin Murray

Justin Murray received his MBA in 2014 from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »