Ron Paul on the Benefits of Secession

From Comedy Central's Indecision Blog, Ron Paul tells the people why the right to secession is a key, understood part of America's original constitutional order.

Economist Walter Williams also quickly surveys some history of states ratifying the Constitution and why secession seems naturally built in. His conclusion:

Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

Comments

[Naga Sadow, resident of Missis]

I think this has been settled. The federal government settled it with a boot in the ass of every Southerner.

[domoarrigato]

Ah yes, "the war of northern agression"

[Randolph Carter]

I recently had a high-ranking state Democrat tell me that there is no reason, ever, in any way for secession. And historically, that the US did not "secede" from Great Britain.

There are big chunks of people who believe this.

[Naga Sadow]

domo,

Do you wear a white suit, sit on your porch, and drink iced lemonade everyday?

[Naga Sadow]

Wait. Isn't there more industialization in the South than in the North these days? If so, I say "BRING IT, BIOTCHES!"

You just mind your business Westerners!

[SpongePaul]

I am ready, what state wants to so i can move there

[brotherben]

Are there any states with an economy robust enough to make a go of it without having their hands in the federal government till?

[The Government?]

Just don't come running to me when Canada invades your secessionist asses.

[High Every Body]

So, we get this Ron Paul tidbit but nothing on his pirate solution? You know, Blackwater on blue water?

This is shaping up like the Jim Webb gun in DC thing.

[Xeones]

Just don't come running to me when Canada invades your secessionist asses.

We have already established that Canada is imaginary.

[High Every Body]

Are there any states with an economy robust enough to make a go of it without having their hands in the federal government till?

Probably all of the states that send more money to DC than they get back in services and funding.

[Gilbert Martin]

The Wah between the states wasn't the first instance of the issue of state secession coming up in American History.

South Carolina threatened to do so during Andrew Jackon's presidency.

[Naga Sadow]

Xeones,

Fool!!! They are simply waiting for the next big war! When your back is turned they are gonna pull a Melanthus(you should recognize the reference with your cognomen) style ass whipping on you! Don't be fooled!

[Nick]

I'm pretty sure Montana could kick Canada's ass. Alaska almost definitely could.

[Naga Sadow]

Gilbert,

New England was holding conferences on it during the War of 1812. Treasonous New Englanders! That's why I don't trust Epi!

[Canada??]

We'd be too drunk anyway, eh?

[High Every Body]

I'm pretty sure Montana could kick Canada's ass. Alaska almost definitely could.

Even New Jersey could, while the mob is vacationing in Florida.

[ChrisO]

Ron Paul is essentially correct at the end of his statement. This only becomes a real issue if the dollar (and thus our economy) collapses, Argentina-style. At that point the federal government becomes either a helpless behemoth or a ruthless tyrant. Either outcomes makes disintegration of the U.S. more likely. This wouldn't be like the Civil War or some fanciful Texas tough talk, but a real crack-up with unpredictable consequences.

[squarooticus]

Are there any states with an economy robust enough to make a go of it without having their hands in the federal government till?

During the era in which we were able to trade promise of dollars for "stuff", it's possible most states were net positive simply by virtue of being part of the US.

That is not clear anymore: in a closed system (in thise case, one in which the US has to trade equal value for equal value, rather than a promise of worthless dollars for "stuff"), some states will necessarily produce more than they use and some will necessarily consume more than they produce. If the producers leave, or together form their own, smaller union, they will be better off than the remainder.

[Kunal]

So, we get this Ron Paul tidbit but nothing on his pirate solution? You know, Blackwater on blue water?

Ron Paul's pirate solution is, whats that word? Yeah, stoopid.

Somehow, paying folks for killing skinnies doesn't sound like it would end all that well.

[Nick]

Do non-mobsters in NJ have any guns? Or did they legislate that away?

Speaking of such a state action how does the Federal Govt justify allowing states to make their own gun laws in opposition to the 2nd Amendment and then turn around and arrest Medical MJ dispensaries in opposition to the 10th? I swear no one thinks, present company excluded.

[High Every Body]

Do non-mobsters in NJ have any guns?

Who needs guns? We are talking about canada.

[R C Dean]

Somehow, paying folks for killing skinnies doesn't sound like it would end all that well.

Historically, of course, killing was the traditional remedy for piracy, and has been proven effective when applied.

[robc]

RC Dean,

Historically? It worked last week.

I guess that is technically a part of history now.

[Texas Toast]

Are there any states with an economy robust enough to make a go of it without having their hands in the federal government till?

Texas. But there isn't a political climate for it, and we're in between a rock and a hard place: between Yankees and Mexicans. Suffice it to say, "they need us more than we need them" isn't entirely an unheard-of sentiment, but why deal with more borders and politics than you already have to (which is a lot)?

There's no stomach for it. Ask again when the comfort zone has actually changed.

[tarran]

Ron Paul's solution is not merely Blackwater on the high seas; blackwater had no legal liability for anything they did in Iraq.

Privateers have to put up a bond and are covered by a pretty comprehensive system of law and custom that holds them liable to anybody they injure who is not a legitimate target under their warrant.

Ron Paul's solution is closer to Molinari on the high seas.

[That Guy]

Actually I think several of the states (Texas, California, New York, etc.) would immediately rank in the top 10 or 15 largest economies in the world if the seceded.

[bubba]

the US did not "secede" from Great Britain

A British colleague once remarked, "what could be more British than a tax payer rebellion against a German king?"

[High Every Body]

Ron Paul's solution is closer to Molinari on the high seas.

Then it is safe for Reason to cover it since it is not just like "Iraq on water".

[Benjamin]

I like RP less and less. First he didn't have the balls to step away from the money train that is the GOP and now he advocates secession. For what? The American people are to blame for their continuous sucking upon the Federal government teet. I guess he wants the US to end up like the warring squabbling mess that was once the nation of Jugoslavia. TS Ron...you had your chance to shine and you blew it. Secession won't change the Boomer created live for big nanny state Gov. How about a new political party and some new ideas.

[Gilbert Martin]

"Actually I think several of the states (Texas, California, New York, etc.) would immediately rank in the top 10 or 15 largest economies in the world if the seceded."

California is right now whining for the federal government to backstop the municipal bond debt it wants to issue to (again) paper over it's budget crisis, so I don't think they'll be planning on sucession anytime soon.

[Gilbert Martin]

Make that secession - not sucession.

[Tony]

Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

The majority of the country handled it pretty well over the last 8 years. Then again we understand that democracy means not always getting what you want.

What a bunch of whiny crybabies the GOP base is.

[JParker]

Naga Shadow to back up your view, looking at my great grandfathers high school textbooks printing(1890ish) I believe. And I'm quoting from memory but I found it the language vivid memorable and direct. "While theoretical arguments for a right to secession can be found, all questions to its practice were settled during the recent War Between the States. That there exists no right to secession from the union"

Basically don't play lawyerball the fact that the other states forced the seceding states back into the union means there is no right.

[Gilbert Martin]

"What a bunch of whiny crybabies the GOP base is."

Nope - that would be the folks who want government to be their Mommy and Daddy and make sure they have health insurance, food, shelter, clothing and education, etc. ect., etc.

In short, liberals like you.

[Warty]

Then again we understand that democracy means not always getting what you want.

As far as I can tell, democracy means forcing people to do things.

What a bunch of whiny crybabies the GOP base is.

That borders on tautological.

[Naga Sadow]

JParker,

Awesome! I've been told before that I'm ruthlessly realistic! I LOVE living up to nicknames and phrases thrown my way!

[Kunal]

Historically, of course, killing was the traditional remedy for piracy, and has been proven effective when applied.

You misunderstand. Here's an interesting bit from the Politico article:

money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.

This means that RP wants the US government to pay contractors/privateers who kill or incapacitate pirates. Which means there will be an incentive to identify "pirates". This is the same approach that worked so well with the Byrne Grants, right?

[Gilbert Martin]

"Gilbert,

New England was holding conferences on it during the War of 1812. Treasonous New Englanders! That's why I don't trust Epi!"

Ha! I wouldn't New Englanders anyway.

They should rename that section of the country to "Chock full O' Libs"

[ChrisO]

now he advocates secession.

Maybe you should go back and listen to his statement again. He doesn't advocate it, but merely claims that it is both constitutional and within the bounds of American tradition.

His basic point is that the threat of secession is a valuable tool to keep the federal government in its place. Valid point, while ignoring how much damage to liberty is done by local and state governments. Even if Texas seceded, the big cities there would still be full of joe-like urban planning nazis, welfare recipients, and university lefties. Unless there's some kind of deportation program...

[James B.]

Probably all of the states that send more money to DC than they get back in services and funding.

At the current deficit spending levels, is there still any state paying more than it gets back?

[FatDrunkAndStupid]

Benjamin,
The odds of new political parties and ideas emerging from 50 independent states, or better yet, a even larger multitude of independent states, city-states, and micro-nations are far greater than the odds of new political ideas coming out of one massive nation which practices democracy and is populated by a majority of idiots. And Ron Paul understands this better than anybody. His focus has always been on educating rather than campaigning, even when he was running for President. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism will rise or fall when it gets its opportunity in the wake of the collapse of the US Government.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Haven't the secessionists heard of the chain of command....you know, the rule that goes "i'll beat you with the mothafucking chain until you understand whose in command here"?

Secession is merely a peaceful in theory. In practice its pretty much who has the biggest and best guns and theories for and against go out the window. Arguing about the 10th amendment is pissing into the hurricane in our current climate and I don't forsee that changing.

[Tony]

As far as I can tell, democracy means forcing people to do things.

Yeah that's what governments do. Like forcing you not to kill people. A democracy means the force is legitimate because it was collectively agreed upon.

You know I've got some ideas that are considered far outside the mainstream. But I don't whine about how life is so unfair because society doesn't immediately adopt them.

[jim]

Face it, as long as Ron Paul is the de facto face of libertarianism in this country, people will continue to view libertarians as a bunch of wackos who are barely a step up from militias.
Every time I see a protest with Ron Paul signs or every time I read a comment on various message boards about how Ron Paul is going to take back America and do such things as reinstitute the gold standard or end all foreign aid and bring all the troops home (because our allies would fucking love that, and pissing them off now would be an incredibly awesome idea)I, firstly, laugh, and secondly, get pissed off because he is a clown who publishes racist newsletters (don't give me that bogus ghostwritten bullshit)won't vocally condemn 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs who tend to cling to him and he even goes as far as appearing on their radio shows, ie Alex Jones.

As long as the first thing people think of when they hear the word libertarianism is Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura, libertarianism is fucked and will never gain more than a relative handful of adherents. That is very unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Like forcing you not to kill people.

Because it's wrong, despite what a collective says. The government is simply a tool of the collective which recognizes this. The Constitution protects natural rights as they are understood. It does not invent them.

A democracy means the force is legitimate because it was collectively agreed upon.

I don't see how collective action, in it capacity as collective, can be legitimate unless you are circularly defining "legitimate" action condoned by the collective. And if that's the case, then you have something wrong with you.

[R C Dean]

A democracy means the force is legitimate because it was collectively agreed upon.

Sigh. Being democratic is necessary, but not sufficient, condition for legitimacy of government. I suppose, Tony, that the democratic ratification of a Constitution that specifically countenanced slavery made slavery A-OK back in the day?

[engineer]

"Then again we understand that democracy means not always getting what you want."
Democracy is hardly an end unto itself. It's only justified to the extent that it's the least worst form of government.

[engineer]

"Yeah that's what governments do. Like forcing you not to kill people. A democracy means the force is legitimate because it was collectively agreed upon."

Wait up a minute! I'm pretty sure killing people is wrong even without a "collective agreement" to that effect.
Epic Fail, Tony, Epic Fail.

[Ynot]

If people telling me what to do isn't the definition of right, I want to be wrong!

[Sean W. Malone]

Tony says:

Majority decree = legitimate.

Really Tony?

So if we decide as a group that it's ok to beat you up and take your lunch money, that's fine right? How about if we decide that your life isn't that valuable and we'd rather see you incarcerated or killed for no reason with no trial?

Or ya know what? How about we just take your house... you don't need it as much as some other guys we know.

Gosh, if the majority says it's ok, clearly our use of force is completely fine then!

You tool.

[Sean W. Malone]

For Tony to Study Carefully

[Paul]

Historically? It worked last week.

That's historically. Well, 'recent historically'.

Somali Pirates: Easiest menace to defend against...ever.

[Paul]

A democracy means the force is legitimate because it was collectively agreed upon.

*Putting that statement in belt, to pull out again when least convenient for person uttering said statement*

[Chris]

I just lost a little respect for Reason because of this post.

[Gene Berkman]

I don't think Ron Paul is advocating secession, anymore than Gov. Perry is. Paul is just stating - in constitutionalist terms - the principle that Mises states in "Liberalism" - that any group of people in a geographically coherent area has the write to decide by ballot whether they shall be independent or affiliated with a larger polity.

Whenever secession comes up - as with Sarah Palin's minimal contacts with the Alaska Independence Party - the Left media (Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann etc) act like the secessionists are going to reintroduce slavery. Not likely in Alaska, not even likely in Texas.

As for Yugoslavia, the problem did not come when Slovenia and Croatia peacefully seceded. It came when Serbs in control of the Yugoslav Army tried to stop Bosnia from seceding, and then promoted secession from Bosnia of Serb dominated areas.

In Czechoslovakia,the Czechs let the Slovaks peacefully secede, and there was no civil war as in Yugoslavia.

[Gene Berkman]

Make that "the right to decide by ballot...."

[Tony-bot]

Stop parsing what I say! When I make a dumbshit statement, I expect you all to forget about it! But I can haunt you with anything stupid you post, even if it's just a typo! That's right! Remember your places, libertards! You're the reason for the economic crisis, global warming (which is going to cause us all to die horrible deaths so sayeth the rule Be'ethos), and wars in the middle east!

GAD I HAT MY LIFE!

[Context?, We Don\'t Need No St]

"In Czechoslovakia,the Czechs let the Slovaks peacefully secede"

RACISTS!

[Mr. Chartreuse]

Whenever secession comes up - as with Sarah Palin's minimal contacts with the Alaska Independence Party - the Left media (Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann etc) act like the secessionists are going to reintroduce slavery.

I think if they met someone from the Second Vermont Republic their heads might explode.

[Probably not Benjamin Franklin]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

[Markus]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner - that is not any of the voters.

Otherwise cannibalism would be legal, and it's not... yet.

[Michael Nenzoski]

The Fed would respond the same way they did in the 19th century. They would cause a war becuase they need the money the states citizens give the Fed. You see, it was illegal in the 19th century and would be illegal now. The Feds don't want people to know that though. That is why they teach the war for southern indepedence was fought over slavery instead of the truth.... It was fought over states rights.

[Anonymous]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner - that is not any of the voters.

Since when has Democracy been defined as an absence of taxes?

[Ted Bayer]

The debate over whether a US State has a right to secede is not most constructively pursued by arguing whether secession is a good idea to do for a particular State at a particular time. The key is that the existence of the right provides protective leverage against an overly intrusive Federal government.

[Pro Libertate]

The right of secession and the act of secession are two different things. As the previous poster notes, the importance of the right of secession is to serve as a check on the federal government.

Honestly, I think too many people assume that the Civil War ended this discussion. Since the principle of secession is embedded in our political philosophy (the Declaration's reasoning applies equally well to state secession as it did to colonial secession), there's no basis for believing that a state couldn't secede.

In modern times, I think there's been more acceptance of the idea that a state (or a province--ask Quebec) could secede, though the likelihood of that happening is very low. After all, if the people of a state overwhelmingly want to go, by what right do the other states have the right to compel them to stay? The Civil War was morally correct in forcing an end to slavery, but it was morally and legally incorrect in forcing union.

[Tony]

Wait up a minute! I'm pretty sure killing people is wrong even without a "collective agreement" to that effect.

Wrong? Who gets to decide what's universally wrong or right?

Is it not a founding principle of our country that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed?

Nowhere did I make the ridiculous claim that simple majorities always rule so kindly disabuse yourselves of that strawman.

You guys accept government force in some instances and reject it in others without any coherent reason. You just don't like some things the government does and so you call those things tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Who gets to decide what's universally wrong or right?

The beauty of government by man is that we don't have to pretend to know the answer of that question.

Is it not a founding principle of our country that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed?

Individuals register their preferences for the ordering of a representative government. It is not the case that a collective of any sort is necessary or beneficial to that system. What you are discussing, in favorable terms, is called "tyrrany of the majority". It's especially insidious when the majority of voters are suicidal.