(
Brexit, Texit, Calexit, Catalonian Independence, Quebexit... all of these movements are real and vibrant. But they're not quite libertarian, are they? Sure, as libertarians it is fair to say that we believe in as little government as possible (which is likely no government.) But doesn't that mean that we're also in favor of AS MANY governments as possible?
Let me put it in another way. If someone must rule over your life - and someone must - then shouldn't that person be you? Don't we, really, believe in every human on earth being a government of one? And those little one-person governments have the right to voluntarily interact with other little one-person governments in whatever way they mutually agree to?
So, that's the goal. And these Brexit-style movements are bringing government closer to the individual - which we like - but there's one problem:
They've all been super nationalistic in nature. In other words, the rhetoric surrounding them have been all about protecting "England First" or "Texas Independence," etc. This is the dangerous part. By wrapping the ideals of decentralizing government around nationalistic rhetoric these movements are still drawing a line as to which people are "worthy" of freedom and which ones are not.
We, as libertarians, believe that everyone is worthy of self-ownership and freedom.
I believe it is critical that we jump into the "exit" game with a libertarian version called "Localization." Localization is not just about breaking apart big, centralized government (although that is clearly one goal), it is more about returning sovereignty to the individual by stair-stepping government control back downwards and away from the hands of the elite. Whereas the goal of Brexit may have been something along the lines of, "Let's stop letting Polish people tell us what to do," the ultimate goal of Localization is, "Let's stop putting ourselves into coercive relationships altogether."
Adam Kokesh's campaign, for instance, has made Localization a large part of the strategy and it's been quite popular. Pragmatists see that it reduces government control without necessarily yanking the rug out from anyone; and anarchists see it as a good first-step.
Of course, the statists will say, "No, let's just fix the government that we already have," and I'm choosing to believe that they mean well. But that line of thinking has been around for 150 years and it has failed. Government only ever grows. And, on the other end are the radical anarchists who want to do away with all government tomorrow, which I believe to be irresponsible.
So Localization is an actual strategy that is possible - it's happening all over the world - it's responsible - doesn't yank the rug out from anyone - and it reduces government immediately. The libertarian movement can own this issue in the 21st century and be seen as an innovator.
The LP Platform Committee is currently considering recommending adding this sentence to the party platform:
Section 3.7 - Self-Determination
"Out of respect for the self-determination of communities and individuals, the Libertarian Party supports the reduction, localization, or elimination of government wherever and whenever possible."
I hope you will join me in encouraging the members of the platform committee to recommend this language to the body of the convention in New Orleans this summer!