Secession and Unity

(To be) delivered at Based Roundtable v3: BLR

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars…

… the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism

As we navigate the early decades of the 21st century, a compelling argument emerges: decentralisation stands out as the central theme, both figuratively and quite literally. While this concept has primarily taken root in the realm of cyberspace, its tendrils are poised to extend into our physical reality. In the United States, the term "national divorce" has recently breached the Overton window¹, entering the realm of mainstream discourse. The Union itself is no longer immune to open questioning, and this shift may be attributed, in part, to the federalist structure of the U.S. government, which inherently allocates powers to individual states.

In contrast, broaching the subject in India seems to invite trepidation. Not too long ago, the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) found itself embroiled in controversy as state-backed actors accused students of advocating for the breakup of India. Without delving into the veracity of these claims at the moment², the backlash against perceived actions at JNU underscores a critical point—Indian political discourse struggles to engage with the topic of secession in a measured manner. Mere advocacy for a plebiscite is hastily labeled as radical, revealing the sensitive nature of discussing such matters in the Indian context.

As Ludwig von Mises astutely recognised, secession, when properly understood, transcends mere tribalist sentiments; it represents a profound affirmation of individual primacy over the Leviathan state. While nationalist fervour played a pivotal role in India's liberation from colonial rule, in our current digitally interconnected era, where the virtues of decentralisation are gaining swift recognition, secession emerges as a practical and effective means to curtail the expanding size and influence of government. It becomes a tool for pushing back against the encroachment of Leviathan into various aspects of individual lives. It's crucial to recognise that the subjugated populace is far from a homogenous entity, susceptible to moulding at the whims of the state.

Furthermore, decentralization provides a powerful solution to the Hayekian 'knowledge problem,' a perennial challenge for central planners overseeing vast populations and territories. By bringing decision-makers closer to the consequences of their actions, decentralisation enhances their epistemic understanding, allowing them to navigate the intricacies of on-the-ground situations more effectively. While it may not be a perfect substitute for outright privatisation, decentralisation serves as a viable mechanism to address the knowledge, incentive, and public choice problems that states inevitably encounter.

The mere prospect of secession tangibly embodies the "exit" option within the 'exit, voice, loyalty' trinity, thereby creating incentives for better governance. In a landscape of smaller political units, individuals can effectively "vote with their feet," directing their tax contributions towards governments that marginally better serve their interests. At its extreme, radical decentralization aligns with anarchism³—the common thread between pan-secessionism and anarchism is the emphasis on choice.

So, what characterises a liberal pan-secessionist movement? Foremost, it must reject tribalist sentiments and any endorsement of repression. A secessionist movement with aspirations to establish a violent caliphate, for instance, cannot be endorsed. A guiding principle for pan-secessionists lies in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration, where he articulates the need to dissolve political bonds and assume a separate and equal station in accordance with the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. To 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.

In adopting a stance akin to "unterrified Jeffersonianism," as termed by individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker, a liberal pan-secessionist movement emphasizes tolerance and rejects alliances with entities such as ISIS, Boko Haram, or the Tamil Tigers. This decision is not just a moral imperative but also a practical one in terms of optics. A key objective is to avoid a recurrence of the American Civil War, ensuring that the existing nation is given no justifiable cause for invasion.

Secondly, it is imperative for any pan-secessionist movement to maintain consistency by allowing for further secession within the smaller polity. If a region like Ruritania seeks independence from Oceania, it must, in turn, permit its own constituent regions the right to secede. The principled approach of European nations like Lichtenstein, and to a lesser extent, the Swiss system of cantons, serves as a commendable model in this regard.

In summary, the presumption of the indivisibility of the nation-state should no longer be taken as a given. A diverse nation like India, with its myriad cultures and perspectives, challenges the notion that a one-size-fits-all government is either feasible or desirable. While the specifics of an Indian pan-secessionist movement remain uncertain, the recognition that diverse governance models may be more suitable is a thought-provoking avenue to explore. Long live liberty, and let a thousand flowers bloom!

1. David French urges us to take it seriously

2. Of course the video was doctored

3. "They're the same picture" as goes the Jenna Fischer image macro