Can the North secede from the Union?

[bort411]

I always wondered about this. Looking at a map of the last 2 presedential electoral results and comparing it to a map of the Confederacy and Union cerca 1864 reveals similiar results. Hypothetically speaking, after a 2008 presedential loss in which the former Union states vote similarly, could the heads of each of these states get together and decide to withdraw from the US?

I suppose an important question would be what to do with Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, California, the Pacific Northwest, and Hawaii. For arguements sake, let's say that the goal would be to form a unified Southern border along Illinois and Indiana stretching to Maryland, with Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Minnesota included. Hawaii, the PN, and Calfornia would not be immediately involved.

As I understand it, this action from Northern States would not be legal, but wouldn't they be violating a domestic statute rather than an international treaty? Hypothetically, couldn't each resident of these states emigrate from the US, if they really were concerned with the Constitution? What would happen if a state containing zero American citizens laid claim to that area?

[DVaut1]

We need more "Bort" license plates in the gift shop. I repeat, we are sold out of "Bort" license plates.

-------

More seriously, I've heard Lawrence O'Donnell make arguments (on the McLaughlin Group is where I think I heard him say it) somewhat similar to this; not necessarily the North seceding from the rest of the country, but from wealthier 'blue' states becoming tired of 'red' state welfare and demanding (at the very least) a complete reorganization of the federal system.

If you Google 'Lawrence O'Donnell + red state welfare' or something along those lines, you'll find some links relating to his idea, I'm sure - as I seem to remember it causing a small raucus on right-wing message boards/blogs and the like. When I heard his explanation, I didn't find it very reasonable - but I never studied his idea in depth, and can't remember the details now. Given the nature of pundit yaking, I doubt he thought about it seriously either; but I don't think you're alone for 'wondering' this.

For those who don't know, O'Donnell is a former Democratic Hill staffer, author, pundit, writer for the West Wing, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
ot necessarily the North seceding from the rest of the country, but from wealthier 'blue' states becoming tired of 'red' state welfare and demanding (at the very least) a complete reorganization of the federal system.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony of Democrats complaining about the blue states "supporting" the poorer red states is priceless. Hypocrisy knowns no bounds for some people.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony of Democrats complaining about the blue states "supporting" the poorer red states is priceless. Hypocrisy knowns no bounds for some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat ironically, I think (altough better economists than I can come refute me) that, if we assume red states are actually just clientele-welfare states, suckling at the breast of the higher-tax paying blue states, we could use the implications of such an assumption to make an argument for a flax tax model that appeals to blue state voters. So while conservatives may bristle at the notion that some red states are tantamount to leeches, they could possibly use such an argument as a spring-board to justify flat tax policies --> and more importantly, find political backing for such models in blue-state areas.

[SheetWise]

Check out Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out Free State Project.

[/ QUOTE ]

Live free or die. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, cool, the officially picked NH. I remember when they started it up and were still deciding on a state. Should be interesting, but I can't see it working.

[thatpfunk]

I think CA seceding would be a little more realistic. We could do it easily.

[lehighguy]

It would be a civil war.

[jcx]

If the north would have just let the south go quietly in the first place this wouldn't be an issue today. And don't be fooled by statistics. An enormous amount of wealth is concentrated in NY and surrounding states because that is the beating heart of our nations' financial system. But much of that wealth originates in "flyover country". A large percentage of the countrys food, mineral wealth and natural resources is domiciled in the freeloading red states. You also have the problem of figuring out who's going to defend your new progressive paradise, since you won't have all those Kansas and Mississippi farmboys at your disposal.

With that said, I support the right of any state to withdraw from the union at any time. The sad truth is they cannot, and would face severe consequences if it was tried.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check out Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, cool, the officially picked NH. I remember when they started it up and were still deciding on a state. Should be interesting, but I can't see it working.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't catch on and spread, it would still be nice to have a large voting block for individual liberty within a state. Have to start somewhere.

[HtotheNootch]

Barring some drastic changes, a breakup of the current US is inevitable.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
could the heads of each of these states get together and decide to withdraw from the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be consistent with the Declaration of Independence.

[ QUOTE ]
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[/ QUOTE ]

States are (were) supposedly soverign political entities and the union was a voluntary collection of these states. Lincoln had a different opinion, that the states were dependent units of the greater union, and that has been the prevailing opinion since then.

Before Lincoln, the "United States" was a plural - i.e. people would say "The United States are located in North America" whereas since Lincoln it has been a singluar - "The United States is located in North America."

[vulturesrow]

This didnt start with Lincoln.

[ QUOTE ]
I think CA seceding would be a little more realistic. We could do it easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And the sooner the better, please.

[kurto]

http://www.jesusland.com/images/map.gif

[bobman0330]

Secession is entirely incompatible with the principle of majority rule, and government in general.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Secession is entirely incompatible with the principle of majority rule, and government in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the majority be able to dominate the minority?

[Easy E]

If for no other reason, revenge for the late 1800's

[LomU]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wondered about this. Looking at a map of the last 2 presedential electoral results and comparing it to a map of the Confederacy and Union cerca 1864 reveals similiar results. Hypothetically speaking, after a 2008 presedential loss in which the former Union states vote similarly, could the heads of each of these states get together and decide to withdraw from the US?

I suppose an important question would be what to do with Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, California, the Pacific Northwest, and Hawaii. For arguements sake, let's say that the goal would be to form a unified Southern border along Illinois and Indiana stretching to Maryland, with Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Minnesota included. Hawaii, the PN, and Calfornia would not be immediately involved.

As I understand it, this action from Northern States would not be legal, but wouldn't they be violating a domestic statute rather than an international treaty? Hypothetically, couldn't each resident of these states emigrate from the US, if they really were concerned with the Constitution? What would happen if a state containing zero American citizens laid claim to that area?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am of the FIRM OPINION that the red states need the blue states more than vice versa.

the nasty sadist in me would love to see how the red states got on without the blue states.

this is an excellent scenario for libertarians, how would they handle the sucession of a state or two? their ideology would have some serious conflicts of interest me thinks.

[lehighguy]

I suppose it goes back to a states rights question. If the federal government has little/no power, then the states have no reason to secede.

People don't secede for stupid ass reasons. It's usually over something big. Which is why we aren't going to see it now.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
this is an excellent scenario for libertarians, how would they handle the sucession of a state or two? their ideology would have some serious conflicts of interest me thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? (NB I'm not a libertarian)

[Benman]

I'm from Texas, about as red of a state as they come. We take in far more federal highway dollars and medicaid dollars than we, as citizens, contribute in federal taxes. It's fairly clear cut that southern states, most of which are red, are net gainers in the federal tax/spend structure.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fairly clear cut that southern states, most of which are red, are net gainers in the federal tax/spend structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are red state legislators simply better than blue state legislators at bringing home the pork?

[Benman]

You're right. I live in the south, and we'd never let you go. We believe that government can never be too small, so we don't tax and pay for any of our services ourselves. We're happy to take your medicade and highway funds, since they're essentially free! It's a very nice way of being philisophically conservative without having to pay the piper.

[CORed]

I don't particularly care for the idea of splitting the country in two (or more. Once you start, it could be hard to stop). However, the question of whether the constitution gives states the right to secede has never been settled legally. When the southern states tried it in 1861, Lincoln did not ask for a Supreme Court ruling; he mobilized the troops and, after four years and lots of people killed, the southern states were brought forcibly back into the United States. The good news was that slavery got abolished when it was all over. This raises the question: If the "blue" states (or some other group of states) seceded, would the federal government just say, OK, seek legal remedies, or follow the precedent set by Lincoln and send the tanks rolling? I really don't want to find out.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
he mobilized the troops and, after four years and lots of people killed, the southern states were brought forcibly back into the United States. The good news was that slavery got abolished when it was all over.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a deal! Slavery ended peacefully just about everywhere else in the world, but some people actually believe a huge bloody war was *required* to end it here.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
What a deal! Slavery ended peacefully just about everywhere else in the world, but some people actually believe a huge bloody war was *required* to end it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think that slavery would have eventually died out here without the civil war, if for no other reason than that it didn't really make sense economically. However, at the time of the Civil War, the south was clearly willing to go to war to keep it. A lot of people forget that Lincoln did not run as an abolitionist; he actually only wanted to prohibit further expansion of slavery into the West. The states that seceded found even this to be unacceptable. The net result was that slavery was probably abolished earlier than it would have been had the southern states not seceded. Would it have been better had Lincoln not gone to war against the Confederacy? I don't know. It was a brutal, bloody war. Maybe it would have been better to let the U.S split, but there's no way of knowing what would have happened had we gone that route. Also, even though slavery ended after the war, the segregation of the post-reconstruction South wasn't all that much of an improvement. Would African-Americans have been better off if slavery had been allowed to die a natural death? Again, it's almost impossible to say.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The irony of Democrats complaining about the blue states "supporting" the poorer red states is priceless. Hypocrisy knowns no bounds for some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat ironically, I think (altough better economists than I can come refute me) that, if we assume red states are actually just clientele-welfare states, suckling at the breast of the higher-tax paying blue states, we could use the implications of such an assumption to make an argument for a flax tax model that appeals to blue state voters. So while conservatives may bristle at the notion that some red states are tantamount to leeches, they could possibly use such an argument as a spring-board to justify flat tax policies --> and more importantly, find political backing for such models in blue-state areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does your food come from? Oh. You don't say.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does your food come from? Oh. You don't say.


[/ QUOTE ]
We can't get them on that one -- CA feeds the world.
Where does their oil come from?
Where does their electricity come from?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I think that slavery would have eventually died out here without the civil war, if for no other reason than that it didn't really make sense economically. However, at the time of the Civil War, the south was clearly willing to go to war to keep it. A lot of people forget that Lincoln did not run as an abolitionist; he actually only wanted to prohibit further expansion of slavery into the West. The states that seceded found even this to be unacceptable. The net result was that slavery was probably abolished earlier than it would have been had the southern states not seceded. Would it have been better had Lincoln not gone to war against the Confederacy? I don't know. It was a brutal, bloody war. Maybe it would have been better to let the U.S split, but there's no way of knowing what would have happened had we gone that route. Also, even though slavery ended after the war, the segregation of the post-reconstruction South wasn't all that much of an improvement. Would African-Americans have been better off if slavery had been allowed to die a natural death? Again, it's almost impossible to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lincoln didn't give a [censored] about slavery. His only goal was to preserve the union - even if that meant enslaving the southern states to do it, even if it meant killing untold numbers of people.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does your food come from? Oh. You don't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say 'where my food comes from' because it wasn't at all relevant to my point. I didn't mention where babies come from, either. Nor did I mention where my car comes from, or a whole host of other things that weren't particularly pertinent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does your food come from? Oh. You don't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say 'where my food comes from' because it wasn't at all relevant to my point. I didn't mention where babies come from, either. Nor did I mention where my car comes from, or a whole host of other things that weren't particularly pertinent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you want the North to secede because you don't want the South to be part of the same country as yours. But you don't seem to mind using the South's resources.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that you want the North to secede because you don't want the South to be part of the same country as yours. But you don't seem to mind using the South's resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't want the North to secede; I'm not the OP; and I called such ideas rather unreasonable in my original post in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does your food come from? Oh. You don't say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say 'where my food comes from' because it wasn't at all relevant to my point. I didn't mention where babies come from, either. Nor did I mention where my car comes from, or a whole host of other things that weren't particularly pertinent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you want the North to secede because you don't want the South to be part of the same country as yours. But you don't seem to mind using the South's resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does "where the food comes from" have to do with it? I don't mind using Saudi Arabia's oil but I don't want them to be the 51st state.

[Manque]

I find in political dicussions people will read what they want to read regardless of what you actually have to say. I've have people call me the foulest names after I had essentially agreed with them.

[lehighguy]

The primary goal of the nation state is territorial stability. If it can't preserve that, it hass failed it primary purpose. If we allow people to break away as they please the nation state is doomed.

That isn't to say the ones that are seceeding are wrong. They are acting in accordance with thier desires and needs. Secession is a failure of governance on the national level. While the federal government should make efforts to correct those structural political problems, it can't allow states to secede formally.

[Manque]

A big reason is that red states have a cheaper standard of living, so a lot of retirees live there.

[lehighguy]

Every state gets two senators, despite population. As a result, people in low population red states are overepresented in the political process.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The primary goal of the nation state is territorial stability. If it can't preserve that, it hass failed it primary purpose. If we allow people to break away as they please the nation state is doomed.

That isn't to say the ones that are seceeding are wrong. They are acting in accordance with thier desires and needs. Secession is a failure of governance on the national level. While the federal government should make efforts to correct those structural political problems, it can't allow states to secede formally.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the nation state must supress freedom to exist? I'll accept that position, and conclude that therefore, the nation-state has no legitimate right to exist in the first place.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wondered about this. Looking at a map of the last 2 presedential electoral results and comparing it to a map of the Confederacy and Union cerca 1864 reveals similiar results. Hypothetically speaking, after a 2008 presedential loss in which the former Union states vote similarly, could the heads of each of these states get together and decide to withdraw from the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why stop there? What if all "red" counties and all "blue" counties formed seperate nations?

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap-final2.gif

What if all "red" households and all "blue" households formed seperate countries? Individual people!? Why not?

What if all "Red" nations formed a country, and all "blue" nations formed a country?

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2004election.gif

[cadillac1234]

Post deleted by cadillac1234

[lehighguy]

What's "legimiate"?

The surrender of certain freedoms is necessary for the functioning of society. We give up our right to engage in vigilante killings because I think legal based law enforcement is a better way to run a society.

I also don't rebel against the government even though I might lose an election or think my leaders are idiots. I do so because I think smooth transistions of power are important to a functioning society.

It's up to individuals to decide when thier freedoms are being infringed too much and they can't be a part of the a nation anymore. Individual citizens decide if thier government is "legitimate" or not.

The nation also has a responsibility to try and stop them. Part of being part of a society is giving up certain freedoms.

Of course, good governance is the best solution to secession. People secede when they believe that thier government no longer represents thier views, and that is a failure of government. Good governance can only go so far, the civil war was the result of two completely opposed idealogies in the two regions.

[lehighguy]

I think his point is that its really a city/versus rural divide then a north versus south divide.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The surrender of certain freedoms is necessary for the functioning of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this.

[ QUOTE ]
We give up our right to engage in vigilante killings because I think legal based law enforcement is a better way to run a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us don't believe in a "right" to vigilante killings. Self defense, sure. Vigilante justice, no.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't rebel against the government even though I might lose an election or think my leaders are idiots. I do so because I think smooth transistions of power are important to a functioning society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smooth transitions are important to a functioning government, not a functioning society.

[ QUOTE ]
It's up to individuals to decide when thier freedoms are being infringed too much and they can't be a part of the a nation anymore. Individual citizens decide if thier government is "legitimate" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Any* infringment is too much. We're talking about rights here, aren't we?

[ QUOTE ]
The nation also has a responsibility to try and stop them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, any tyrannical organization must be vigilant to keep those it dominates in line.

[ QUOTE ]
Part of being part of a society is giving up certain freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of being part of a government-dominated society, maybe.

Quit worrying about society and start focusing on your actual interactions with other individuals. There is no reason that civil interactions can't be maintained without government domination.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, good governance is the best solution to secession.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't no government be an even better solution? Then one doesn't need to worry if secession is the "correct" course of action.

[ QUOTE ]
People secede when they believe that thier government no longer represents thier views, and that is a failure of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the government doesn't represent *everyone's* views, then it is opressing someone. Do away with it.

[tolbiny]

come on, thats only people who have actually met you.

[lehighguy]

You can't do away with government entirely. You don't seem to understand the implications. You say that vigilante justice is wrong, but who will stop it if there are no police or courts.

If a group of armed thugs enter your home, how are going to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is you can't. You need your own group of armed thugs. Those armed thugs are the government. You accept them because you sign a contract stating what the responsibilities and rights of each party (constitution). You figure your better of with this more reasonable group of armed thugs then the other group which may gurantee you no rights.

Security and the universal rule of law is one of the basic tenents even a fierce libraterian will accept as the core of acceptable government. If individuals are capable of using violence to coerce victims the entire idealogy (not to mention the society) breaks down. Roaming bands of thugs vie for power and control. You end up like some central African country.

It's natural that not everyone in a society will agree on everything. As such you need to set up a system whereby people feel they are represented even if they don't get thier way all of the time since its impossible for everyone to always get thier way all of the time.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't do away with government entirely. You don't seem to understand the implications. You say that vigilante justice is wrong, but who will stop it if there are no police or courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow down. Who said there would be no police or courts?

[ QUOTE ]
If a group of armed thugs enter your home, how are going to defend yourself. The fact of the matter is you can't. You need your own group of armed thugs. Those armed thugs are the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government is going to stop armed thugs from breaking into my house? Really? How? Are they going to be in my house before the thugs?

[ QUOTE ]
You accept them because you sign a contract stating what the responsibilities and rights of each party (constitution).

[/ QUOTE ]

You signed the constitution? I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
You figure your better of with this more reasonable group of armed thugs then the other group which may gurantee you no rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

The group of thugs that we have (government) guarantees me no rights, either. They claim to protect some of them. And despite the existence of this ubar-gang, the common criminal gangs you're talking about still exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Security and the universal rule of law is one of the basic tenents even a fierce libraterian will accept as the core of acceptable government. If individuals are capable of using violence to coerce victims the entire idealogy (not to mention the society) breaks down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with all of this. I'm not a libertarian, though. Individuals should not be able to use violence to coerce victims. NB that government does exactly that - they coerce through violence (or the threat thereof).

[ QUOTE ]
Roaming bands of thugs vie for power and control. You end up like some central African country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not. Anachro-capitalism can't *prevent* warlordism, but it can make it unprofitable, and prohibitively expensive.

Your allusion to Somalia is a poor one.

Do you know what's really going on in Somalia?

http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/280-nenova-harford.pdf

"Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent."

In otherwords, anarchy is working there. When people bring up Somalia, they're invariably referring to the chaos that arose right after the government collapsed. This period really doesn't provide a compelling argument for either side - there wasn't enough respect for the concept of order and for non-aggression to allow a free market to spontaneously form, but respect for the law was too low to allow the *original government* to maintain order. It's important to note that Somalia isn't an example of anarchy turning into chaos, but a case of GOVERNMENT turning into chaos.

In any case, back to what's actually happening now in Somalia. Now that the UN forces have left, warlording has subsided (in fact, many former warlords are now in the private security force business), the economy is outperforming most of the rest of Africa, rule of law has arisen out of reputation-based market mechanisms. The private sector is even providing infrastructure, banking and other services many say "require" a state to oversee for proper functioning.

Anachro-capitalism is not a magic bullet that produces equally-ideal results in every situation. The fact is that anarchy has clearly resulted in a better situation in somalia than they had before under a government. That doesn't mean that one should expect that Somali anarchy will produce a better result than American government - there are plenty of other cultural factors at work as well, and we here have an infrastructure that hasn't been ravaged by civil war (NB another internal conflict in spite of the presence of government), and our infrastructure is much more advanced due to our more advanced economy. That said, Somalia is catching up faster than the other countries with similar conditions in Africa, due to not being weighed down by government (and government is in general VERY bureaucratic in Africa, so the difference is extreme). The point is not that America does better despite government, but how much better America could be doing without it.

In short, I am quite interested in what's happening in Somalia. That doesn't mean I'm any less "taken" with the US. As I've indicated before, I have ideals, but I'm not expecting a revolution here anytime soon that will put those ideals into practice. Compromise is great, and I'm willing to compromise on lots of things, but compromise itself isn't an ideal, and leads to boondoggle philosphies like that of John Kerry - loyalty to no ideal except compromise itself.


[ QUOTE ]
It's natural that not everyone in a society will agree on everything. As such you need to set up a system whereby people feel they are represented even if they don't get thier way all of the time since its impossible for everyone to always get thier way all of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So since everyone can't always get what they want, we should impose a system wherein nobody ever gets what they want. Or, gets what they want less often. Satisfaction is definied differently for everyone in the world, so let everyone find it themselves.

There is some deep-seated desire in humans to impose order on things. It's responsible for most of the injustice in the world.

[lehighguy]

This may be convulted, I'm tired as hell.

In another post you were talking about private courts and private law enforcement. I wasn't entirely sure how those were supposed to protect poor people from getting raped when clearly hose resources can be bought off, but whatever.



Police. If someone breaks into my house the police come and stop him. If a foriegn army invades the military comes and stops them. These are the primary functions of government. In order to achieve those objectives we need a uniform code of law, an independent judiciary to interpret that law, and a political authority to write law and administer the army and foriegn policy.




The government has done a pretty decent job of protecting rights over the years. Free speech, due process, etc. have all be respected for the most part. Whether the current government of the united states or its constitutional process are particularly functional is irrelevent to the more theoretical concept of constitutional liberalism, especially in light of the fact that current us government seems to stray far from its core and founding principles.




I'm really not willing to role the dice like Somolia. Even brushing aside the fact that they probably have thier own share of problems, you could just as likely end up in a horrible civil war like so many other countries. The potential costs of a break down in law in order are so enourmous that I think a government funded law enforcement system and an independent judiciary are producing enough consumer value to justify thier existance. I feel private law enforcement and courts would be too easy to circumvent and the weak would be subject to constant physical coersion, thus invalidating the entire system.




Lastly, your a fool to giver everyone total freedom. Some peoples desires require the infringments of others freedoms. We tell the KKK they aren't allowed to lynch black people. I don't think it would be a good idea to just let them do as they please.

Problems could be even a bit more grey. Let's suppose country B invades country C, the neighbor or country A. Some people in country A think B is going to invade them when it's done with C, so A should have troops intervene. Others think it is an issue between B and C and A is in no danger. There is an election and one side wins. Does that mean the other should start a civil war over the difference. Should we start a civil war EVERYTIME there is a difference of opinion (which is inevitable). No. That's rediculous. Rather, we should set up a political mechanism by which all sides feel heard, and they can accept when they don't get thier way.




Does this necessitate big government, no. We can cut down on the things we disagree with by cutting down on the number of things government does. We can cut down on the freedoms we have to give up by cutting down on the scope and power of government. By limiting government to basic roles we have decided it is better at fulfilling then the private market (police, independent courts, military protection) we are all better off. I might even argue that we have more effective rights and freedoms when government provides these basic services like law and order (we are protected from the physical coersion of other private individuals/groups).




A majority of the ills of modern society are the result not of bad government not representing the people, it is a result of the people being represented with blinding accuracy. Modern man is a victim of pride, and the political idealogies he believes are a result of his believe that he knows how to lead other peoples lives better then those people themselves do. Creating a liberal(old school definition) society is impossible when the people themselves don't support it. Only by convincing people to be more humble, convincing them of the things government can't do, can we truly achieve a more liberal society. It doesn't require the overthrow of government, government will exist wherever people demand that it exists. It will only cease its relentless march when the people themselves demand it. That takes education and persuation.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In another post you were talking about private courts and private law enforcement. I wasn't entirely sure how those were supposed to protect poor people from getting raped when clearly hose resources can be bought off, but whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government officials can't be bought off???

[ QUOTE ]
Police. If someone breaks into my house the police come and stop him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. How often does that actually happen - the police get there before the crooks have left? What magical powers to government police have that private police would not have?

[ QUOTE ]
If a foriegn army invades the military comes and stops them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are pretty simple ways that private markets, through a system of insurance and financial options, can provide military defense. Additionally, there's little chance that such resources would be used in offensive wars.


[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, your a fool to giver everyone total freedom. Some peoples desires require the infringments of others freedoms. We tell the KKK they aren't allowed to lynch black people. I don't think it would be a good idea to just let them do as they please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about *total* freedom, but I am talking about unfettered rights. The KKK has the right to organize and associate. There's no right to lynch others, though.

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean the other should start a civil war over the difference. Should we start a civil war EVERYTIME there is a difference of opinion (which is inevitable). No. That's rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Rather, we should set up a political mechanism by which all sides feel heard, and they can accept when they don't get thier way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That mechanism can be the market.



[ QUOTE ]
Does this necessitate big government, no. We can cut down on the things we disagree with by cutting down on the number of things government does. We can cut down on the freedoms we have to give up by cutting down on the scope and power of government. By limiting government to basic roles we have decided it is better at fulfilling then the private market (police, independent courts, military protection) we are all better off. I might even argue that we have more effective rights and freedoms when government provides these basic services like law and order (we are protected from the physical coersion of other private individuals/groups).

[/ QUOTE ]

Small government is better than big government. But you make the same mistake that others make - no government does not mean no law and order.

[ QUOTE ]
government will exist wherever people demand that it exists. It will only cease its relentless march when the people themselves demand it. That takes education and persuation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true.

[lehighguy]

Government officials can be bribed, but they also benefit from mandatory tax collection that ensures thier posistion even if they make tough decisions.

In a system where courts, police, and military are all private market funded who protects the people that don't have the money to provide funding. Let's say you have some poor immigrant and some well funded gang (KKK) starts beating him up. Where does the immigrant go for help. The police are going to tell him that they don't represent him because he doesn't pay for thier services (not because he doesn't want to, but because he doesn't have any capital). The courts will rule against him because thier salaries are paid for by the people perpetrating the crime.

In a total market based system, those with no resources have no recourse against physical coersion by those that are more powerful. You end up with a system of slavery.

Even two well funded organizations may not be able to retain law and order between eachother. If someone has enough money, they can raise an army larger then the one that is suppose to impose the law on them. Or they can buy of the existing army.

It wouldn't be much different from feudal Europe. Nobles using might makes right to impose thier will on weaker nobles. Serfs being slaves with no rights.

Is our justice system perfect, of course not. However, I think it's alot better then one that would gurantee no protections for huge swaths of the population.

If you accept that we need some basic level of government provided law and order in order to protect from physical coersion, then you are going to need some mechanism by which to determine who will be in charge of that power. Hence, a political process.

[vulturesrow]

Another problem with pvn utopian view (parts of with I have much agreement with, just not the totality of it) is that free market conclusions are based on the the premise that all parties have perfect information. Even in our system where we have many regulations that try to get us to this point, we still have inequities of "information wealth", and this is where the smart guys make their money. Dont think those who have better information in pvn's anarcho-capitalist world wont take advantage to better their outcomes over those who dont.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Government officials can be bribed, but they also benefit from mandatory tax collection that ensures thier posistion even if they make tough decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also ensures their position even if they make bad decisions. Lots of them.

[ QUOTE ]
In a system where courts, police, and military are all private market funded who protects the people that don't have the money to provide funding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a common objection. The poor will have trouble acquiring any vital commodity or service (food, clothing, shelter, etc). Should the government give itself a monopoly on these as well? These are arguably more important than police protection.

The poor will be accomodated by chairity. There are, for example, legal aid foundations already operating in our current system. Police forces would have market incentives to maintain good public relations (unlike the police we have now) and therefore would provide services to the poor. They might not get the same level of service that the rich do, but it's pretty obvious that we already have that situation in the US now.

[Abednego]

Don't look now but industry is leaving Michigan for sun belt locations. People are moving to FL at the rate of 800 a day. The electoral map is rapidly changing. Used to be carry NY and CA and you were practically in. I am from MI and go there on business frequently ...... are you blind to the blight that surrounds you (assuming you are in Ann Arbor), Meanwhile the south continues to grow in prosperity and population. Newest auto plants as an example are in KY, TN, AL, and SC etc.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't look now but industry is leaving Michigan for sun belt locations. People are moving to FL at the rate of 800 a day. The electoral map is rapidly changing. Used to be carry NY and CA and you were practically in. I am from MI and go there on business frequently ...... are you blind to the blight that surrounds you (assuming you are in Ann Arbor), Meanwhile the south continues to grow in prosperity and population. Newest auto plants as an example are in KY, TN, AL, and SC etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Sounds interesting.

Yes, I know people are moving the sunbelt, and taking industries with them.

Yes, I know the auto industry (or at the very least, auto labor) is stuggling to find stability here in Michigan.

Yes, I know the electoral map is changing.

While interesting, it's not at all relevant to anything I said. Nowhere did I say the North should secede; in fact, I said it sounded unreasonable. In fact, I went even farther than that, saying that Lawrence O'Donnell's suggestion of even a mere reorganization of the federal government was unresonable.

Please read all the posts in the thread.

[Abednego]

yours is a most excellent post