I continue to see libertarians hail the Catolnian steps toward secession and label the steps as a move toward freedom.
This is a grave error.
Revolution and secession may throw off one region's back one government but it must always be asked: What will replace the old government?
Charles Lindbergh failed to ask this question when he
hailed the Russian Revolution of 1917.
He wrote in 1923 in his book, The Economic Pinch:
The Russian people, with ample excuse because of the lack of voice in the old monarchy, took direct, successful action. It was the only thing they could do if they were to become free.Some freedom that turned out to be. It led to the formation of the Soviet Union, 60 plus million deaths and decades of oppression for the remainder of the Soviet population.
A replacement of a government is not enough, what replaces an existing government is not a question that is asked enough.
Finally, I note that some argue that a separation is fine as long as it is peaceful. But why should this be the criteria for support rather than how the new government will govern?
Consider the case of Catalonia.
A Sigma Dos poll for El Mundo showed anti-independence supporters at 43.4 percent of the population while pro-independence supporters equaled 42.5 percent.
Let's say that based on these numbers Spain allowed the secession and that this opened the door for rule by the radical Left which is a major supporter of secession. How would this be a positive for the 43.3 percent who want nothing to do with radical left rule?
The driving factor for libertarians must be whether a revolution or secession leads to more liberty or less. That is all.
Revolution and cession are only tools that can be used for good or evil. Ask the people that lived under Lenin and Stalin, if Charles Lindbergh's view was correct.