About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Politics
Anarchism
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Corporatarchy - Rule by the Corporations
Economic Documents
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Foreign Military & Intelligence Agencies
Green Planet
International Banking / Money Laundering
Libertarianism
National Security Agency (NSA)
Police State
Political Documents
Political Spew
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
The Nixon Project
The World Beyond the U.S.A.
U.S. Military
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Secessionist Strategies

by Carol Moore

<blockquote> <p>"...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those Ends (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."</p> <p><div align="right">-- Declaration of Independence, 1776.</div></p> </blockquote>

TIME FOR A NEW EXPERIMENT

Those who signed the Declaration of Independence clearly stated that people have the right to "alter or abolish" any government which does not suit them and create another form of government. In effect, they held that any governmental form is merely an experiment.

Today, increasing numbers of Americans and peoples of other nations are questioning the legitimacy of their governments. They are fed up with taxes and budget deficits and burdensome regulations.

Many are racial, religious, tribal or regional groups seeking greater autonomy or complete independence from a centralized state. More than 5000 tribal and national groups are subsumed into 190 states--and most of them want more freedom. In fact, most of today's shooting wars are attempts by the leaders of centralized states to destroy dissident regional and tribal movements!

In the last few years we have seen the dissolution of the Soviet Union and growing secessionist threats from many members of the Russian Federation. Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have been divided. Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and other African nations are beginning to split into their constituent racial, religious and tribal communities. Indian leaders have warned it could split into hundreds of mini-states. And Canada may yet be divided.

The United States' rising welfare/warfare debt and increasing economic stagnation have prompted rumblings of secession from tax-burdened counties and states. The fact that by the year 2050 half the U.S. population will be Native, African, Asian and Latino Americans suggests ethnic separatism will become increasingly popular.

The breakdown of large nation states presents great opportunities for anti-authoritarian/pro-freedom activists: anarchists, bioregionalists, communalists, decentralists, greens, libertarians, separatists, social ecologists, etc. These challenges to centralized nation states have legitimatized movements for self-determination, decentralization and secession in the eyes of many politically aware people. Clearly growing numbers of humans worldwide--including millions of Americans--are ready for a new experiment. Increasing numbers of political theorists and activists are offering decentralist political alternatives, called variously decentralized canton system, confederated communities, libertarian municipalism, libertarian decentralism, communitarianism, human scale politics, new age politics.

However, existing separatist movements present responsibilities as well as opportunities. As we know, in places like Yugoslavia, Somalia, Nigeria, the Russian Caucuses, those who seek to gain or maintain power are twisting healthy human desires for independence and autonomy into the ugliness and brutality of religious, racial and tribal bigotry and conflict. They urge their brethren to "cleanse" their communities and regions of people who are different. We must expose this perversion of human aspiration and promote humane and tolerant forms of--and strategies for--political decentralization.

FOUR SECESSIONIST STRATEGIES

In this piece I stress secession, the strategy, instead of political decentralization, the alternative, for several reasons. I am an action-oriented person. I want to appeal to those already contemplating or organizing secession. I want to counter the efforts of statists who try to co-opt decentralization by emphasizing "decentralization from above." Finally, I want to remind us all that secession is more than just a strategy, but an inherent part of decentralist principles and alternatives. Below I describe four broad strategies: consense on common principles, raise consciousness to critical mass, create community and alternative institutions, and organize non-violent resistance and secession.

I. CONSENSE ON COMMON PRINCIPLES

We must define certain principles which will allow both ideologically disparate anti-authoritarians and ethnic, religious and regional separatists to work together. However, should our humane principles turn off oppressive individuals and movements who want to force their ideology, religion or nationalist ambitions on others, we should not consider it a loss. For there are hundreds of millions of individuals of good will who might be persuaded to organize around the three principles below: individual liberty, community autonomy and non-violence.

Individual Liberty

The concept of liberty is simple: individuals should be free to do whatever they please as long as they don't harm (or use force or fraud against) others. Libertarians and many "New Agers" use such expressions. Most pagans subscribe to the tenet: "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." A typical Taoist observation is "Those who flow as life flows know they need no other force."

These are similar in intent to the Christian "golden rule": "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." and to the Muslim saying "Who does not want for his brother what he wants for himself?" (As one Muslim explained it, "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself.") I'm sure we could find Buddhist and Hindu variations on these themes.

The institution of monopolized law and violence known as the "state" has it's own "golden rule": "be willing to sacrifice all for the glory of the state or the `public good'." States claim they protect citizens against crimes like assault, slavery, murder, pollution, theft and destruction of property, and fraud and misrepresentation. In truth, states consistently engage in just such acts against citizens.

To insure individual liberty, we must remove the state's monopoly on law and legal systems. Legal systems existed before the state in the form of customary or common law administered by community elders and in some mercantile legal systems which served far flung trading areas. And they have always existed in the legal and constitutional systems of private organizations and associations.

As the "state" rose to prominence it usurped control of common and mercantile law and added upon them first the fiat law of kings or dictators and later the constitutional, legislative and administrative law of republics, democracies and even military regimes. Yet today failures in the statist legal system have given rise to non-state alternatives like the hundreds of private mediation, arbitration, and court services which have arisen in the United States in the last two decades.

We would replace the monopolized legal system with a "polycentric" legal system. Diverse, multiple "centers"-- individuals, groups, corporations--create law. Studies of existing customary and mercantile law suggest 5 features of polycentric law systems:

<ul> <li>Reciprocity: Law is not imposed by the state, but created by the agreement of individuals to cooperate in anticipation that others will do the same. <li>Crimes are Torts: All crimes against individuals (violence, pollution, theft, fraud, etc.) are treated as "torts" or wrongs against individuals, not as state crimes. <li>Individuals Enforce Law: Individuals, not the state, bring action to enforce contracts and file claims when crimes are committed against them. <li>Restitution: Monetary awards to the harmed individual instead of punishment by the state. <li>Non-violent sanctions: Negative publicity, boycotts, and ostracism for those who do not comply with contracts or make proper restitution. </ul>

How would a non-state, polycentric legal system work?

Individuals and businesses could choose from "legal service" and "protection" providers not much different from today's lawyers and private security services. Some providers would offer full-spectrum legal and security services, others would specialize in certain fields, like entertainment law or computer security.

Individuals and businesses in dispute, or those charging others had defrauded or injured them, would have their legal service provider demand the other party enter into mediation or arbitration. The sanctions for refusing to enter into some form of dispute resolution--or to pay any agreed upon restitution--would be non-violent. The primary one would be a negative entry in one's "legal credit rating," something readily accessible through various "legal credit rating services." (Current privacy laws outlaw such legal credit rating services, but do permit financial credit rating services.)

Harm to an individual's "legal credit rating" would be a serious threat. Individuals proved to have repeatedly harmed or defrauded others would face the harshest sanction of all: ostracism by law abiding people and communities. People would refuse to associate with them, to sell to or buy from them, to rent to or hire them. They would have no choice but to live in communities with people as irresponsible and untrustworthy as themselves!

Since everyone--from low income individuals to the biggest corporation--could hire a legal service provider (or, in a free market, form one), it might seem that polycentric law could degenerate into warfare among competing criminal gangs. However, societies run like this self-destruct, as Somalia did when warring gangs looted the farmers and caused mass starvation.

Most societies are survival-oriented and therefore legal service providers (both profit and non-profit) would want to keep the cost of providing services down. They would avoid violence, which only would drive costs up. Both the claimant's and the defendant's legal service providers would be eager to persuade their clients to find a mutually satisfactory solution to their dispute.

Community Autonomy

Crucial to individual liberty is the freedom to join communities which themselves are autonomous and self-governing. This means that a community's contract or constitution can set rules and policies governing who is allowed to become a member or visit and what activities they may or may not engage in within the community. Individuals would join the community only if they agreed to these limitations.

For example, a residential, family-oriented community might ban prostitution, nude dancing and distribution of psychoactive drugs; a hedonist commerce-oriented community might encourage these and ban children; and an industrial park (one form of community) might ban all of the above! In a truly free society, individuals would be free to form communities of interest which cater to their own ethnic, religious, ideological, cultural, lifestyle, or economic preferences--as long as these communities do not aggress upon other individuals or communities.

Geographically-based communities would be created by buying land and property, not by driving off unwanted people in the horror of "ethnic cleansing."

Many communities would be much like those we see today: traditional small towns, farming communities, suburban enclaves, distinct ethnic and religious neighborhoods in larger cities, university or artists communities, industrial parks, shopping/ apartment/entertainment complexes, etc.

Others would be more exotic. Environmentalists could buy and protect old growth forest, coastal wetlands or other wilderness areas. Social workers could form rehabilitation communities for outlaws committed to cleaning up their "legal credit rating" so they can rejoin law-abiding communities!

How can we ensure communities will not degenerate into mini-despotisms that enslave and abuse their members -- especially women and children--or aggress against other communities? A community's contract or constitution should contain the following safeguards:

<ul> <li>Bill of Rights - A written guarantee of (a) freedom of association and of movement in and out of the community; (b) equal political rights to participate in community decision- making, to vote, to access to community-related information, and © procedural rights--right to trial and due process, right to counsel, right of appeal, no cruel and unusual means of interrogation or punishment. Geographically based communities also would have to set procedures and guidelines by which landowners could secede from the community. <li>Consensus-oriented Decision-making - Contracts and consensus democracy are both examples of consensus-oriented decision-making. In contractual communities individuals agree to abide by established policies and to settle any disputes with the management or other members through arbitration (rather like the tenants of a large apartment complex). Democratic communities might also spell out some basic terms in a membership contract. However, later decisions would be made through seeking consensus of all members. <br> Working to ensuring that all members--or at least 95% of all members--consent to any decision about rules and policies avoids the deal-making and defacto "minority rule" which characterizes most majority rule decision-making. Consensus ensures community harmony because members adopt only rules and policies that enjoy overwhelming support. Even communities with thousands of members can use modified forms of consensus. <br> Provisions allowing only 10-15% of all members to rescind a rule is extra insurance that ones found to be onerous are quickly dropped. Additionally, there should be "fair exit provisions" that ensure individuals disagreeing with a near-consensus rule or policy are given sufficient time to settle affairs and leave a community. <li>Non-violent Sanctions - Using only non-violent sanctions to enforce rules and policies is another check on possible abuse of community members. Such sanctions against rule breakers would range from private talks to public criticism to fines to denial of services and trade to ostracism to (non-violent) expulsion. In any community, violence should only be permissible in self-defense against physical aggression. <li>Community Membership in Networks or Confederations of Communities - This protects individuals because such confederations could boycott or expel communities that abuse members. Communities would form regional networks or confederations to facilitate conflict-resolution, to address common problems and issues, and to defend against potentially aggressive communities or criminal gangs. How can we prevent confederations from becoming new nation states? Individuals and communities should also expect networks and confederations abide by bills of rights (for both individuals and communities), 100% consensus decision-making by representatives of all communities, and non-violent sanctions. Confederation agreements would necessarily include the right to secession. </ul>

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Hinchey Amendment
why UK accepts US subjugation and infiltration?
Why Marxism IS Economically Exploitive...
Situation in Turkey
Putin not playing nicely
So, I hear they have Mcdonalds in China...
china? russia? usa?
I have created..
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS