September 16, 2013
By: Kelly Diamond, Publisher
Secession is such a wonderful thing. It’s the mark of true autonomy and freedom.
Secession as a word exists only because first humans wanted to disassociate from a given collective.
Secede: verb
Dictionary.com: to withdraw formally from an alliance, federation, or association, as from a political union, a religious organization, etc.
World English Dictionary: (of a person, section, etc.) to make a formal withdrawal of membership, as from a political alliance, church, organization, etc.
Merriam-Webster: to separate from a nation or state and become independent
Look at mainstream society and there are groups and labels galore! Starting in school with WHICH school, then the cool kids, drama club, jocks, and skaters. Then in university it’s not only about WHICH school but, all of a sudden, it’s about major, race, gender and sexual preferences. Then you graduate, and added to the list are political bent, socio-economic status, and religion and denomination of said religion. Now do the same thing with location: street name, city, zip code, county, state, country… Or in the case of a job, whether or not you are union.
The categorizations don’t stop!!! Look at when we have babies! What percentile are they in weight, length, development, aptitude…
When I hear anyone talk about secession, I immediately ready the confetti and balloons to celebrate freedom from some sort of contrived group.
Secession is all around us and laced throughout human history.
Home and Un-Schooling
I’ve heard it said that how we raise our children can also be our biggest form of activism. And until I heard that, I never once considered how profound an effect child-rearing could have on the future. I’ve since been rather diligent to create a peaceful home built on mutual respect and reason for my children to demonstrate that such conduct is more preferable to that of force or carrot-stick incentivizing.
But to make the decision to secede from institutionalized education is HUGE! Whether it be preemptive or mid-stream, any time is a good time to take children out of prison! It simply isn’t natural for children to compartmentalize their education. Learning can happen anywhere and parents who can and do show that to their kids have already made indelible strides in teaching them the virtues of being a unique individual.
Right-to-Work
Not that I needed reminding that I am free to associate with whomever I wish, or conversely free to NOT associate with whomever I wish, but it’s nice when the government isn’t there to strong-arm me into associating with people with whom I don’t even want to share the same air. A great resource for the latest and greatest on the right-to-work effort is the National Right-to-Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Unions are rather communist in nature: they require everyone’s participation to work. That requirement ends up manifesting itself in the form of mandates and compulsory participation in them. Evidently, it’s not fair if a union collectively bargains for certain wages and benefits, and not everyone is paying into the pool. This is the EXACT same argument made for why individuals cannot secede from their respective governments, by the way.
My father was a public school teacher. Liberal as his politics were, he was surprisingly anti-union. He had a half-assed option to not participate in the teachers’ union. They garnished a certain amount per month, but there was also an optional amount that he could withhold. The garnished amount was tens of dollars per month. The optional amount was something like $6 per month.
Anyway, when the teachers went on strike, the union lawyers represented only those who paid the additional $6 per month. Not that it mattered because in the end, all the teachers received the same benefits. But they made it a point to exclude those who refused to pay the additional $6, even suggesting that they were expendable should some layoffs be necessary.
As it stands, the United States is split almost down the middle on the number of right-to-work states and non-right-to-work states. Likewise, where you find right-to-work you find at-will employment arrangements. All of which are good for everyone when put into the context of free association. The best relationships are the ones where people voluntarily stick around and know they are free to go. The most productive employment relationships are ones where individuals are free to negotiate the terms of their employment based on the agreed worth of their labor.
Abject slavery isn’t very productive nor is it particularly sustainable. It’s nearly impossible to maintain any worker morale. The most successful businesses have learned to invest in their employees and treat them well (or at least comparatively better than their competition). In so doing, the need for a union goes to the wayside. If I’m getting a competitive salary and benefits package, why do I need a union? I don’t. If I am incentivized by some bonus structure, or perhaps I have an accommodating employer who is willing to work with my personal circumstances, that holds more value than perhaps some cookie cutter package negotiated by a union. Such personalized relationships in the work place tend to elicit great results from individual employees.
Contrast that with employees who take for granted the collectively bargained benefits, and are waiting for the next round of negotiations to get even more blood from a stone.
Earning based on merit, reciprocity based on mutual respect. That is the net outcome of free association.
Geographic Secession
While I realize the fiery hoops through which any given secession group must jump in order to create a new state, the mere fact that there are those who are even discussing or petitioning for such a measure, blesses me.
Obviously, there are inherent problems when you have to seek permission from a centralized entity of force to decentralize it in some way. That’s like asking a dictator to relinquish some of his/her power. We at GWP consistently advocate diversification and decentralization because that’s just smart investment and asset protection advice. But the same is true with power: decentralized power ultimately removes control and power from the hands of an elite few and returns them to the rightful owner which is the individual.
I was living in Australia during the referendum for Australia to secede from the British Commonwealth. That failed because of a lot of the little details which would’ve ultimately left Britain in charge regardless of whether the measure passed or not. People recognized it for the hoax that it was and it failed.
I was living in Japan during the referendum for Quebec to secede from Canada. It narrowly failed, but that’s not to say that they aren’t still trying to get away from their association with Canada.
Currently, Scotland is trying to secede from the British Commonwealth as well.
America was forged under the pretense of secession: from England and King George. Obviously, it was only political lip service from George Washington and his cronies… but the revolutionaries who fought genuinely believed they were fighting for liberation from an oppressive British monarchy.
Abraham Lincoln wiped his ass with the notion of states’ rights and anyone’s right to secede. I don’t know why he’s depicted as some American hero considering he basically waged war on free citizens, instituted a draft and income tax, and forced the south to stay in a union it didn’t want to be in.
There was talk of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties seceding around the same time in 2011. Now there is talk of a Northern California County seceding, namely Siskiyou County.
Even on the East Coast in Maryland – you know, that lovely state that is nestled right up close with Washington D.C. and has 9 counties taxing its residents for rain drainage – the western part of the state is saying they can do without Baltimore.
With all these myriad manifestations of secession, I’m surprised that many of the very advocates for these measures stop where an individual would want to secede from their country and opt out of the system altogether. Why? It’s the exact same principle of free association at play here. People still have some flexibility when it comes to WHICH government or country they can associate with, so while totally opting out might be a bit rough, opting out of your current country is on the table.
But, as it’s been put: If at first you don’t secede, try, try again. If you are interested in separatist or secession movements, perhaps a good link to visit might be the Middlebury Institute.
8 Responses
Very refreshing article. Sometimes I think I’m the only one who believes the federal government, that is the union created by the original sovereign states, has over-stepped the bounds of its charter and bylaws (the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution) since it very inception. Though I have a lot of good words about a few of our presidents and some of our representatives and senators, I agree with you that there hasn’t been one president worthy of adoration and only five who even earned my respect (Jackson, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan). Since reading my first biography of Lincoln in grade school, I’ve believed him to be a charismatic charlatan (like Clinton) and a master politician, not a statesman.
I believe you’ve attracted another fan. I’ll start reading some of your other articles and books.
Anyone who would seek a position of power like presidency should be scrutinized relentlessly. I’ve heard the Framers regarded as the “Founding Lawyers” as opposed to the “Founding Fathers”. I believe what makes many of the men you listed respectable were what they DIDN’T do rather than what they DID do. They didn’t tax as much, they didn’t interfere as much. I think when it comes to politicians, less is more. I have a local Sheriff that parks his truck right outside my complex. That truck hardly ever leaves, because that man probably doesn’t do squat all day. That makes him a great sheriff in my book. LOL
Another excellent article, Kelly. You nail unionism for what it is, a forced collective for whom there is no escape for those unfortunate enough not to live in right to work States.
Thanks, Jim! The unions have a special place in hell waiting for them… LOL
This was extremely poorly written piece ! Hard to follow train of thought, offensive language ,and depiction of presidents negatively without supporting thoughts or evidence. I hope you were not trying to convince anyone of anything with this piece, because it would have the exact opposite effect. Crudely written ,poor ly done piece.
Hard to follow? It was just an enumeration of various forms of secession. What was it that you had a difficult time following?
Offensive language? Was it the “half-assed” offer to opt-out of unions for my dad? Or the fact that Lincoln “wiped his ass” with states’ rights? Either way, how were either offensive to you? In both cases, they referred to someone other than you.
Sorry, I presumed that folks knew their history about Washington and Lincoln. It wasn’t meant to be a rehashing of historical events. BUT if you are saying you didn’t know that Washington was just a despot in waiting or a crony capitalist, then I am happy to offer supporting facts!
After the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention was held behind closed doors (so much for transparency, right?). Washington’s men guarded those doors so no one could come or go. It wasn’t because they feared the British that they did this behind closed and guarded doors. It was because Washington was hell-bent on becoming the leader of the new country.
Key members refused to attend because they knew it something was amiss. Patrick Henry refused to attend or sign because “he smelled a rat in Philadelphia tending toward monarchy”.
The soldiers weren’t being paid at all for their service in the Revolutionary War, so what does Washington do? Instituted a Whiskey Tax. The soldiers just got back from fighting over a tax on Tea… and Washington orders a Whiskey Tax… but there were exemptions in the language which of course benefited the owner of the LARGEST distillery in new country… that distillery was owned by George Washington. I suggest you look into the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington was nothing but a crony capitalist.
Basically, the Revolutionary War had the exact same outcome as every other violent overthrow or revolution: another despot taking the place of the previous one.
Don’t believe me? Look at what we have today? Either the Constitution allows for this nonsense, or was powerless in preventing it. There’s a reason why several original signers of the Declaration of Independence REFUSED to sign the Constitution and it wasn’t just the weather and sick kids at home.
Abraham Lincoln is an easy one and rather self evident. The South wanted to secede. Lincoln waged war on his own people to prevent them from exercising their right to secede. He instituted a draft and income tax. This stuff is taught in grade school. But the greater detail of the myths surrounding this scoundrel can be found starting here.
Thomas di Lorenzo is a very harsh critic of Lincoln, but only because the facts are so starkly different from Lincoln’s portrayal. In this article, there is reference to a book you might find interesting as well by Lerone Bennett, Jr. called Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.
Lincoln was also quite the crony given his ties to the Railroad barons.
I don’t know how familiar you are with me and my writing, but you should know that I haven’t got a single kind word to say about any president. I don’t buy into the over romanticized depictions offered by public school text books and nationalistic flag worshipers.
I hope I was able to clear up some of the items you mentioned.
As to Lincoln and his real intent which was to force the South into the North’s industrialization, I recommend Morris Berman’s “Why America Failed,” in which this noted Civil War scholar observes, “. . . most Northerners also believed, at least initially, that the war was not about slavery as a moral issue; and if we look at what Lincoln said about it, we see that this is true: the North did not go to war to free the slaves. “I have no purpose,” said the president in an address to a special session of Congress on July 4, 1861, “directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists,” repeating what he had already said in his inaugural address earlier that year. Secession, he went on, was the real issue, for the Union must be preserved at all costs (the Union Congress passed resolutions endorsing all of this). Lincoln had already made it clear that he did not favor social and political equality for blacks “in any way,” and was in fact a major proponent of colonization—repatriating them to Central America. Lincoln’s reply ought to clear up any doubts as to where he stood on the matter, at least at this point in time: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” All the evidence suggests that the North’s “nobility” in fighting slavery was a long-after-the-fact justification, an attempt to portray the conflict as a victory of morality and equality over depravity. It’s a thesis that gets people all worked up, but it finally doesn’t wash.”
Here are some other sources with regard to George Washington:
“Tyranny Unmasked” by John Taylor of Caroline
“Hologram of Liberty” by Kenneth Royce
“Hamilton’s Curse” by Thomas di Lorenzo (only because Hamilton had such a huge influence on Washington)