Saturday, July 24, 2010

On Secession

Three blog posts recently on secession:

- OK, the first is technically on nullification - the Mises Institute interviews Tom Woods on his new book on state nullification. For those of you not familiar with him, Tom Woods is an Austrian-oriented historian that I have a big problem with when it comes to the 1920-21 depression. But that's another matter. His new book is on nullification.

- David Ribar, a fairly liberal economics professor at UNC, an alum of my alma mater (William and Mary), former professor at my other alma mater (The George Washington University), and one-time co-panelist at a Southern Economic Association conference, does a round-up of recent secession-happy Republicans, and reviews one case in particular.

I actually think secession isn't as unreasonable a position as a lot of people think it is. I don't see how you can admire the founders and admire Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence in particular and not be ethically and legally fine with secession. We cannot be a nation of, by, and for the people if the people are not free to withdraw their consent to their government (an enormous irony of Lincoln's famous address).

Nullification, I think, is a different matter. It may have been a tenable position in the early antebellum period, when the institutions of governance were being worked out. But decisions were made, institutions developed, and social contracts (much as I hate that term) were forged. Nullification now is repudiation of that institutional evolution. You cannot remain in the Union and repudiate the terms of Union at the same time. To a certain extent, then, I suppose all I'm really saying is that nullification amounts to secession. I oppose the very idea of nullification as a course of action that stands independent of outright secession.

So I actually wouldn't be as critical as Ribar is, but I wouldn't be as enthusiastic as Woods is. My question for secessionists isn't so much "how could you think this is legal or ethical", as it is "how could you possibly think this is necessary or desirable"? They are treating the dumbest move on the part of the South like it was its greatest triumph. I'm not as dismissive of the Confederacy as a lot of people are, and I hold a fairly nuanced view of the Civil War. But even a "less dismissive than average" view of the Confederacy I think can still be nothing more than a qualified disapproval. Even those positively disposed towards the South as a civilization have to recognize the attending evils of the Confederacy, and not just the evils but the unforgivable blunders. And secession is among those blunders. It's not a question of "can they do that?" for me. They can. It's a question of "why would you do that?". The leaders of the secessionist movements in the antebellum South need to be regarded, even by sympathetic Southerners, with "impotent fury" (to quote Harper Lee). One might defensibly say "with Lincoln's army marching and threatening my home, I'll pick up my gun and fight". One cannot defensibly argue that secession was intelligent, or well-advised, or in the interests of the South. It's even more infuriating that so many secessionists, then and now, uphold Washington specifically as an icon; Washington! - one of the greatest examples of what it means to be a "Union man".

Anyway, I'm not lawyer but the legal niceties of secession never bothered me all that much. The right to secede seems to me to follow naturally from the right to incorporate a state in the first place. Any statute on the books that would oppose that right simply begs the question. After all - it's precisely that statue book that presumably one is seceding from! The question of why one would even consider the prospect of secession, so long as the United States remains such a paragon of republicanism, liberty, and democratic representation - that is a question that I simply can't answer.

23 comments:

  1. "The right to secede seems to me to follow naturally from the right to incorporate a state in the first place."

    That depends on whether one believes in the "just cause" justification for secession or not. Ex. The primary problem for the American south was that it's cause for secession was not a just one.

    "...so long as the United States remains such a paragon of republicanism, liberty, and democratic representation..."

    This is just question begging. Is a society which locks up as many as the U.S. a "paragon of liberty?" There are many reasons to believe that U.S. is less than a paragon with regards to either criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Certainly - I'm not trying to make a case for the unconditional right to secede. But secession and self-determination seem to follow naturally from each other. That doesn't mean they don't have to proceed in a just, defensible, orderly way.

    Maybe paragon is not the right word. It is not ideal, certainly, but it is one of the best and there should be serious doubts when anyone makes the case that a rash new experiment could do better. I think we can say that much and express those doubts without making any silly statements about the U.S. being ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paragon defined: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=lMj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&defl=en&q=define:paragon&sa=X&ei=55FNTKuDK8P68Ab3y40z&ved=0CBIQkAE

    I think it is "rash" to call the U.S. a paragon of anything.

    "It is not ideal, certainly, but it is one of the best and there should be serious doubts when anyone makes the case that a rash new experiment could do better."

    Well, when nation-states refuse to allow such experiments there is a problem. For all the rosy pronouncements, etc. by politicians, realistically the U.S. is a pretty crappy place to live in comparison to other reasonable potentialities. Much of that is due to the inertia in poor directions that having a centralized state creates.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paragon

    And here we have "a model of excellence or perfection of a kind" and "a peerless example" to add to the mix. I am obviously thinking in terms of "peerless" rather than "perfection".

    You seem to be tripping up on my word choice - if that's the case, forget "paragon". I meant it as a superlative rather than an ideal. It seems to be acceptably defined as both, but there's no reason to perpetuate the confusion.

    "The U.S. is a pretty crappy place to live in comparison to other reasonable potentialities"

    This is what scares me about libertarianism, why I think they have a utopian streak, why I don't think they take their own thinking about emergent, naturally evolving institutions and spontaneous order to heart, and this is why I worry about what in the past I've called libertarian "mega-projects" being imposed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You're scared of libertarians because we assume that better worlds exist than this one?

    "...why I think they have a utopian streak..."

    There's nothing wrong with being a utopian - in fact, most of what exists today that is good was considered utopian at one point in time.

    "...why I don't think they take their own thinking about emergent, naturally evolving institutions and spontaneous order to heart..."

    It is hard for an "emergent order" to come into being when most of what is proposed for that emergent order is illegal. This of course gets back to my point about inertia.

    "...and this is why I worry about what in the past I've called libertarian "mega-projects" being imposed."

    *LOL*

    Look, the only libertarian "mega projects" which exist are either wholly voluntary in nature or assume that they will come to fruition via the ballot box.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Daniel,

    The fact that we don't even ban people from blogs illustrates just how radical we are when it comes it comes to things like self-determination, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You're scared of libertarians because we assume that better worlds exist than this one?"

    Hmmmm - no. I was a little vague I suppose, but I never said that. I thought the context was sufficient, but apparently not.

    "There's nothing wrong with being a utopian - in fact, most of what exists today that is good was considered utopian at one point in time."

    Again, we're probably degenerating into yet another argument over semantics. I would distinguish utopian from idealist. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I said "milleniarian" rather than "utopian"?

    It is hard for an "emergent order" to come into being when most of what is proposed for that emergent order is illegal.

    1. That's an overstatement I think.

    2. The whole point is that custom, law, etc. is emergent order as well. It's rule-making. The argument isn't that that rule-making is perfect. It's simply to say that libertarians need to recognize how little they know about what they think they can design.

    Look, the only libertarian "mega projects" which exist are either wholly voluntary in nature or assume that they will come to fruition via the ballot box.

    Do I really have to walk you through this statement? Since when is the ballot box an assurance? Short of communists or nazis coming to power, the most radical, imposed, disruptive, socially-engineered changes to society that could possibly occur would occur if we had a libertarian administration and congress. You want to see social engineering and a repudiation of emergent order and evolved social institutions, you put a libertarian in control of the white house and congress.

    It absolutely baffles me that this point is so lost on libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daniel,

    "That's an overstatement I think."

    It isn't an overstatement at all. It is an absolute fact that anyone outside of the gilded world that you live in realizes rather quickly.

    "It's simply to say that libertarians need to recognize how little they know about what they think they can design."

    Actually, libertarians design very little - liberals like yourself are the designers. You think that the world that exists is an emergent one - when in fact, those sort of mechanisms are short circuited or degraded all the time by one centralized plan or another. Really this is an issue of over what emergence actually is. I'm not going to simply let you claim the high ground on that subject. That is a strategy I am fairly fucking getting tired of.

    Anyway, presumably if libertarians actually came to power via the ballot box that would be an example of an emergent order. After all, it would take, well decades for that sort of thing to occur. It absolutely baffles me that you don't get that. I mean, do I really have to walk you through this?

    Let me hazard a guess - what annoys you - to be frank - about that prospect is not the emergence issue but an end to the social engineering that you favor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It is an absolute fact that anyone outside of the gilded world that you live in realizes rather quickly."

    Haha. "Gilded world" I live in? You have no idea what you're talking about.

    "Anyway, presumably if libertarians actually came to power via the ballot box that would be an example of an emergent order."

    As a practical matter of how it would play out, you're right. What I laid out in my comment above was the installation of an ideological perspective in power. And if libertarians were installed into power by the ballot box or whatever other means, we would have social engineering on a massive scale.

    In the real world, it would be a slow process - libertarians would grow in power slowly, they'd experiment slowly, they'd learn lessons and perhaps retreat from a few ideas, etc.. Institutions would emerge more naturally. All I mean is that if I was "king for a day" - if I had the freedom to make all the policy changes I would want to, and if you or someone like you had that power, you would be far more radical and far more the social engineer than I would. That was the point. Practically speaking, of course, it would play out differently.

    "Let me hazard a guess - what annoys you - to be frank - about that prospect is not the emergence issue but an end to the social engineering that you favor."

    Well, both. Experimentation and gradualism are an explicit part of the social engineering that I favor. It's an explicit part of some libertarians' favored social engineering too. For many, though, it is not. Just look at libertarians and Austrians scoffing at Keynes when he writes about "experimentation" and testing things out. That's how confident they are in their social blueprint and their ability to design.

    It's extremely ironic that Hayek said that line in some ways. It's not ironic, of course, given all that Hayek worked on the uses of knowledge. What is ironic, though, is that so many of his fellow libertarians didn't seem to fully appreciate the point. That would have been understandable if someone like Keynes said it, but it's richly ironic since Hayek himself said it!

    ReplyDelete
  10. BTW, it's rather interesting how you turn a phrase like "reasonable potentialities" into utopianism and now millenarianism.

    Serious question: are libertarians just an "other" to you or something?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It was more the "U.S. is a crappy place to live" combined with the point that they could come up with something better if only most of their ideas weren't illegal.

    It's the "our world is 'crappy' (your word), and we can make it better if they would just get off our backs and let us put our ideas into practice".

    That seems like a reasonably utopian attitude to me.

    Yours was also just an allusion to a much broader and more general sentiment among libertarians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "All I mean is that if I was "king for a day" - if I had the freedom to make all the policy changes I would want to, and if you or someone like you had that power, you would be far more radical and far more the social engineer than I would. That was the point. Practically speaking, of course, it would play out differently."

    If I were king for a day ... the military would drastically be reduced in size and so would our prisons.

    Then again, that is never going to happen, so, why even bring it up?

    "Just look at libertarians and Austrians scoffing at Keynes when he writes about "experimentation" and testing things out."

    Because Keynes wanted to experiment with (a) other people's lives and (b) with other people's money and (c) he wanted to do so without their consent. Libertarians just have problems with those sorts of attitudes and we always will no matter the ultimate benefit.

    Hayek said something similar in an entirely different context. Thus, no irony.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel,

    Yes, it is a pretty crappy place - in comparison to reasonable potentialities.

    "That seems like a reasonably utopian attitude to me."

    Well, it isn't. And yes, a lot more people would be far happier if the state stopped doing say about a half-dozen things. Arguing that sort of point doesn't seem all that utopian or millernarian to me. But hey, I'm the crazy libertarian, right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Well, it isn't."

    Ya - nice job trimming the context. Read the prior sentence to see what I was saying "that seems pretty utopian to me" in response to. If the shoe doesn't fit what you were saying - if I didn't infer accurately - then that would be one thing. But that was what I was responding to.

    "And yes, a lot more people would be far happier if the state stopped doing say about a half-dozen things."

    Wait, wait. Are we talking about just tweaking things. I never said beneficial change is impossible, did I? No, I didn't. This so far has been a big-picture discussion about the state of our institutions. Of course there are things that could change for the better.

    I was and am comparing the institutional framework we're working with and adjusting now to an institutional framework that could be impose. Of course there are beneficial adjustments that could be made. What would the point of me supporting emergent institutions if I didn't think there could be change for the better?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "This so far has been a big-picture discussion about the state of our institutions."

    Here's a suggestion ... before you create an entire mental world regarding "reasonable potentialities" - why not ask me what I mean by it first?

    Oh, and our institutions also suck.

    Anyway, gotta go now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Here's a suggestion ... before you create an entire mental world regarding "reasonable potentialities" - why not ask me what I mean by it first?"

    This is why I said you shouldn't have trimmed my response when you quoted me.

    There was some question of what you meant.

    I elaborated for you and said I think that is utopian.

    This is an "if the shoe fits, where it" situation, Xenophon. Either clarify it the first time you say it, or quote me more fully and just let me know that my inference was wrong.

    Don't berate me for not being able to read your mind and expanding the point myself so that the discussion could continue.

    And for God's sake, again - if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. If what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, don't get so bent out of shape about it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "This is why I said you shouldn't have trimmed my response when you quoted me."

    I didn't. I would have block quoted the entire paragraph if it were part of one ... but since it was a stand alone sentence it was reasonable for me to quote it so.

    But all of that is beside the point ... because this is what got this entire conversation rolling:

    "This is what scares me about libertarianism..."

    You go on - in a later post - to argue that libertarians in their end results are almost as bad as Nazis or communists. Honestly, the conversation should have ended there because it was Godwinned at that point.

    I really do think that libertarians are basically a foil to you ... an "other."

    ReplyDelete
  18. "You go on - in a later post - to argue that libertarians in their end results are almost as bad as Nazis or communists."

    I never made any such claim. I said that they would be second only to a communist or nazi government in how radical the change would be. I never once - not once - said that libertarians would have "end results" that "are almost as bad as nazis and communists".

    A libertarian polity would be immeasurably better than a Nazi or communist polity, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

    If you're going to read that kind of crap into what I say, I'm not sure why I should even bother saying it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is exactly what you wrote:

    "Short of communists or nazis coming to power, the most radical, imposed, disruptive, socially-engineered changes to society that could possibly occur would occur if we had a libertarian administration and congress."

    These are your descriptors: "radical" "imposed" "disruptive" & "socially engineered."

    I'm not reading anything into that. All of these terms I guess could have some sort of positive connotation, but when combined with the statement about Nazism and communism ... well, you get my point.

    "A libertarian polity would be immeasurably better than a Nazi or communist polity..."

    Well, it is nice to know you feel that way.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "All of these terms I guess could have some sort of positive connotation, but when combined with the statement about Nazism and communism ... well, you get my point."

    If that is your point, then claim it from the get-go. Don't attribute it to me.

    I meant what I said. Communist or Nazi policy makers are the only ones that would be on par with libertarian policy makers in how radical, how disruptive, etc. their policies are.

    I did not say their policies would be equally bad. If I thought that, I would have said it. I didn't say it at all, which means that you read it into it.

    "Well, it is nice to know you feel that way."

    It's practically self-evident. I can't imagine how you'd be reassured by a position I've pretty clearly held to for my entire blogging experience.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I did not say their policies would be equally bad."

    I didn't say you said that ... almost as bad was the phrase as I recall.

    When you flip out the Nazi terminology you have to be rather precise.

    It is rather hard to tell what you think about libertarians actually.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "When you flip out the Nazi terminology you have to be rather precise."

    I was precise. I chose my words specifically, and you'll note that "almost as bad" never appeared in the words I chose.

    The question is, why did you leap from "radical" to "bad"? Why are you so intent on insisting that I'm saying libertarians are almost as bad as Nazis? What could you possibly have to gain from distoring my comment like that, when you know very well I'm going to go write back to the exact language and demonstrate that I never said such a thing.

    If you can't tell that I think libertarianism is substantially better than Nazism I'm not sure what to tell you. You've been following this blog too long for me to swallow BS like that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I didn't distort it. Any reasonable person would look at that sentence and go ... hmm, this guy is comparing libertarians to Nazis and the comparison doesn't make libertarians look good.

    "...why did you leap from "radical" to "bad"?"

    "Radical" plus all the other descriptors you mean.

    "If you can't tell that I think libertarianism is substantially better than Nazism I'm not sure what to tell you. You've been following this blog too long for me to swallow BS like that."

    I've been following it long enough to realize that you constantly complain about libertarians.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.