This article originally
appeared in The Gold Standard, the journal of Gold Standard Institute.
Many people are angry about
the outcome of the election. While there is some soul searching, there is
also a large and growing disgust, not just with President Obama but with the
electoral process and the country itself. Out of anger and frustration, some
people are calling for secession, though it's unclear how many.
It is easy to see the
attraction. Let each "side" go its own way. Red states can be
"conservative" and blue states can be "liberal" (those
terms have different meanings in America than elsewhere). No more strife at
the ballot box; let each side be governed as it chooses.
There are two problems. First,
there is not much difference between the "liberal" and
"conservative" positions. Both believe in paper money, public
education, regulations and permits, transfer payments, progressive taxation,
government-provided retirement and healthcare, massive taxes on inherited
wealth, government-provided transportation, and many other statist ideas.
Second, these two groups are
not neatly sorted out with one group on one side of a line and one group on
the other side. Even in the "liberal" state of California, the
"liberals" are in Los Angeles and San Francisco and the rest of the
state is "conservative" for the most part.
The situation today is totally
unlike the situation in 1860 (the only time secession was attempted), in
which there were distinct ideological groups and they were geographically
separated.
Today the majority is unhappy
with the consequences of ideas they themselves believe in. We can see this
with the "conservatives" saying that if they were elected, they
would repeal Obama's version of socialized medicine and replace it with a
"common sense program to provide universal health care access." As
if their version would somehow incorporate "common sense". As if
there could possibly be "common sense" in taking money from some
people and using it to give free benefits to others.
Secession is no solution for
the any of the problems that plague us today. Let's look at what it would
mean in reality.
The original idea behind
Southern secession was that states have a "right" to allow whites
to impose slavery on blacks. Of course, states do not have
"rights". Rights are by definition and by nature individual. But
many today hold the idea that states should have a "right" to
impose the laws that the local voters desire, such as imposing religion on
the population, or group-based welfare. These ideas will fail at the local
level for the same reason they fail at the national level.
Now think of what secession
would mean, especially if it really picked up momentum. Ultimately, there would
be 50 countries (or more--why can't Northern California secede from Southern
California, if California can secede from the US?), each with its own
diplomats and armies. There would be innumerable borders, across which the
flow of people, goods, and money would be restricted and/or taxed.
What would happen if people in
each region were forced by circumstance to eat only what could be produced
locally? Once the flow of oil stopped, the people in arid western states like
Arizona would perish, as there is little water without pumps powered by
diesel or electricity. And how would oil pass through so many borders between
mutually distrusting (if not hostile, envious, or trade-warring) countries?
What if other consumer goods
had to be produced locally? There could be no such thing as a computer, as
the chips in computers require a worldwide market. There could not be 50
local Intel corporations. Nor motor manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, pumps,
power plants, lighting, etc. Even if there were no wars--started because one
of these little countries thought to plunder another--there would be
large-scale death and a huge decline in the quality of life.
Could law enforcement exist
this way, and what of respect for law and order? It would be an environment
of strained public budgets combined with mass anger. Those who feel entitled
to be given free stuff could form gangs to take it from anyone they find.
And think of your money. You
wake up one day, and the US dollars in your bank account are replaced with
Texas "Stollars" or "MontanaBucks". North Dakota already
has a state-run bank, and other states could follow suit. The only thing
worse than the current system where money is borrowed into existence, is one
in which the legislature can print it at will. Could "Dakotars" hold
any value?
Breaking this once-great
country into 50 remnants will guarantee that we collapse. And this is why I
am writing about secession. The theme is the same as with the gold standard.
We must work to prevent
collapse.
I don't know if some Romans in
465AD thought that collapse would help them restore a more honest form of
government. We do know now that their civilization did not bounce back for
over 1000 years after it collapsed.
The fight for the gold
standard is the fight to preserve civilization and prevent collapse. Opposing
secession is part of the same fight.
