Sunday, November 13, 2016

A Further Comment on Cheering on Calexit

In the comments section for the post, CALEXIT: Revolution is Not Always a Good Thing, many are objecting to my view.

E.g. an anonymous commenter writes:
Wrong Bob. If the people of Cali want to secede, that is their choice and it's not up to me as a non-Californian to teach them about liberty first. They are at liberty to decide.
Nowhere in my post do I say that a California secession should be stopped. I merely point out that such a secession is not likely to turn out well.

California is filled with lefty wackos. I am horrified at the thought of the type of government that they would institute. That's what I wrote:
I am no fan of big government but I hate to think what kind of whacko government would emerge in California given the number of lefty wackos in the state.
My point is revolutions and  secessions do not necessarily lead to nirvana.

I go on to say:
Focus should be on the long and difficult task of converting the masses to at least a gut level appreciation of liberty rather than promoting revolutions and secessions before the masses are likely to introduce liberty.
Supporting wacko revolutions and secessions can only lead to the charge after they fail: "Well, you supported it."

A libertarian's first focus should always be on liberty.

Cheering on a secession, without making it clear that secession which doesn't move in the direction of liberty is not going to work out well, is a grave error.

It is really saying: "I am in favor of local statists being even if they are more oppressive than federal statists."

Libertarians should focus on advancing liberty not on cheering on technical forms of more oppressive government.

The libertarian answer to Calexit should be: "I am not opposed to breaking away from oppressive government but I am not in favor of then introducing an even more oppressive government."

When the commenter above writes: "If the people of Cali want to secede... "

It is a socialist trap.

There are no "people of Cali," there are the oppressors and the oppressed. Replacing the oppressors with a new set of oppressors is not an exciting prospect for me.

Libertarian secession is about shrinking government, not putting a modern day Mao in charge.

It is an exciting thing when people want to secede to escape government oppression, so we should not be against secession itself, but we must make clear that secessions can lead to horrific consequences if they are not accompanied with a fundamental appreciation of liberty.

Maybe there is a momentum thing when one secession leads to others but I am really not going to cheer on a secession that leads to more oppression.



  1. it would serve the people that live on the continent known as north america much better if all of gov't and their siblings were herded into california and california was designated its own country. removal of these criminals and the possibility of harm coming from thier offspring would be a great forst step in returning the stolen land back to those who have been wronged by these types of people ;)

  2. You're missing the point. The argument is that decentralization causes liberty because of competition between the states.

    1. Oh yeah, just like we have liberty across the world now because of competition between countries.

    2. Eh...YEAH.

      Or do you think where you are living now is the same as living in Sudan or North Korea? Never heard of a phenomenon called "refugees"? Imagine if they had nowhere to go where things are better. So yes, competition between states creates freedom, which is exactly why governments oppose secession in the first place.

      There is a reason libertarians prefer state governments over federal goverments, European national governments over the EU, and supranational governments over world government.

  3. I agree with you on this. To me, the question is 'What is secession'? What does 'secession' mean?
    It means a person or group withdrawing from the political authority of another group.
    Calexit doesn't meet that definition. The people who want Calexit are not withdrawing by itself. What they are doing is withdrawing themselves and then going and forcing their will on another group (the minority in California). So Calexit is not pure secession. It is secession + other stuff.

  4. While it is certainly true that the result of a California secession would be a "wacko, lefty" government, this is not all together a bad thing. Such a government would collapse into Venezuela-style chaos within 10 years of its formation, adding more weight to the historical evidence against socialism. It would also be just desserts for all the wackos in Hollywood and elsewhere to actually have to live under the system they advocate without being able to count on looting the productive elements of society, which would clear out of Cali as soon as secession looked probable.

    Also, anything that serves as precedent for a reduction in power for the Washington regime is a step in the right direction.

    1. I agree the country would collapse if it followed socialistic policies but unintended consequences could take it a completely different direction. For instance, you are too harsh on those "wackos" in Hollywood. They often verbally support socialistic ideas but their actions tell a different story as they continue to participate in a most fiercely competitive business. In many ways the entertainment business shows us what a free market looks like.

    2. "adding more weight to the historical evidence against socialism."

      Since when did people learn from history?

  5. So we should maintain the union as is until most people have a fundamental appreciation of liberty? So much for the marketplace of ideas being allowed to work itself out voluntarily. You live in Cali and are liberty minded so that colors your opinion of Calexit. However, we all know many (definitely a majority) people there are not at all liberty minded. Not being a resident of that state, I think that the people there should secede and get the gov't they want and deserve, good and hard. I imagine secession and decentralization of the US will lead to very diverse outcomes, some towards liberty and others away. People will need to move about to select the best political climate for themselves or live with the consequences of not doing so.

  6. My great-great-grandfather marched with John C. Fremont when he went to Monterey, California and kidnapped Jacob P. Leese, and General Mariano Vallejo in 1846. My six foot, six inch tall ancestor was put in charge of taking these two hostages back to Sutter's fort and guarding them in the fort's jail. So I have a unique perspective on California's history and what Mariano Vallejo thought of the U.S.

    My great-great-grandfather became good friends with the general during his captivity, and would on occasion visit the general years after the Mexican American War. Mariano Vallejo's son later wrote that his father wanted California to become part of a great seafaring nation like Great Britain, or the U.S.A. The general's son wrote that his father preferred the U.S.A. over Great Britain as the best alternative at that point in 1846.

    Today I would have to say that if California was to vote to secede from the union it would have to open the proverbial gates wide open to Chinese investment, and those Chinese seeking citizenship. California will in due time be nothing more than a distant yet subservient colony of China. As an eastern colony of China they would suffer extreme censorship, internet censorship, mandatory vaccination, and no 1st, 2nd or 4th amendment. I can only imagine the horrors that would be part and parcel of their new world order constitution.

    I left over 20 years ago, and I have not been back in over 5 years. To be honest the handwriting was on the wall 30 years ago.

  7. We have more than if there were fewer countries, or one country.

  8. If the people of California are "wacko, lefty" then their presence in the same country as others jeopardizes the liberties of the other people. The best thing for the rest is to remove California, no?

  9. It depends on where you are physically located in regards to the secession. In Wenzel's case he is on the wrong side of the split. Losing Cali would be a positive for a guy like myself in Florida. Less lefty wackos to contend with.
    Stay calm and secede (in your best interest) !