Image Source
Introduction
Ryan McMaken begins his talk by first stating that there is quite a bit of precedent for secession. Between the end of World War 2 and today, the number of individual countries has more than doubled. This makes a lot of sense, as the end of the War brought about the end of colonialism, which made a ton of new countries throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He also brought up the interesting point that liberalism has completely changed from its historical roots. I found that quite cool because I also knew that the democrat party also was at one time essentially the old republican party (at least by name), and now the democrats are not at all what they used to be. In terms of self-determination, I agree with him that all people’s have a right to form an independent state or attach to a different state than from the one they are currently in. What I had not considered is the question of WHO gets that right? I have long been of the stance that the US will break apart, and it will do so not along state lines, but probably more county wise. Mr. McMaken then brings up the American Revolution, and he says that the prototype for most modern secessions are based upon. The fact that the USA was successful in breaking away more or less established that view of self-determination. I had not considered that way back in the 1800’s, a country breaking away was almost entirely unprecedented, and would have been mind boggling. Following the American Revolution, Poland followed suit and drew heavily upon the US example.
Molinari
I also found it amusing when Mr. McMaken brought up the fact that during WW2, Churchill was ragging on Hitler about self-determination, but after the war he entirely changed stances and said well actually only Europeans can have self-determination. Of course, decolonization proceeded and now even the U.N. recognizes a right to it. The debate now revolves around under what circumstances is secession ok? Personally, as long as the group is of majority, they can leave. A city, county, town, farm, whatever. I agree with the French radical Molinari who said that there should not be some sort of preexisting administrative state to back a secession movement. That is far too rigid.
The Majority will always Control
Hearing about the ban on circumcision in Iceland is a super interesting example. I had not considered how it was essentially a ban on Judaism. But, for the Jews in Iceland, it is not like they could secede. There is NO answer to keeping the majority from abusing their power. The constitution can sort of help, but eventually it ends the same. Eventually the majority owns all of the major forms of law. People in the minority congregate together, and the question is how do we allow them to assert their own self-determination? Secession really is the only REAL way to go about doing that. *I suppose that allowing secession will prevent Civil War in a way, although I really don’t know if there is a way to avoid it. *
What is good about Small States?
Mr. McMaken goes into the benefits of having many smaller states. They exist on a more human level. Being administrated from close is always better than being administrated from far away. The government which is closer is more involved in the daily affairs you deal with, and therefore will be able to govern you more effectively. It is also easier to leave a smaller state (as long as the state allows you to leave), so if you end up wanting out, wanting your own self-determination, you can just head out. Federalism is NOT the answer, especially now that the federal government is so big that states really do not have as much power. The feds don’t want people to leave because without such a big populace, they could not support themselves. The USSR’s size allowed the government to do whatever they wanted and be completely totalitarian.
The European Miracle
Why did Europe succeed so well after the late Middle Ages? Most historians agree that it was because Europe was so decentralized politically. The powers in the early Middle Ages (China, The Caliphate, the Eastern Roman Empire) were all MASSIVE political entities. In Europe, you had dozens of different countries and city states you could live in. The fact that no single entity could control a huge majority of the people, even though they shared quite a bit of the same culture. People could move around freely to the states in which they liked the most, and there were so many competing political entities and areas. This was very good for economic growth in the area.
The economics of Small Countries
Can small countries do well economically? Well, if you aren’t isolated from other wealthy countries, yes, they can do just fine. The “wealthiest” countries per GDP wise in the world are small countries. Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Switzerland are some of the richest countries, and they are not big countries. These countries are open to business in ways large countries aren’t as much so. The Baltic states have gone well beyond Russia in terms of per capita GDP, which is notable considering the differences in starting spots. I did not that the EU was attempting to get all countries to raise taxes to a certain level, which is super bad for business and might end up with the EU falling apart in a way.
Won’t Foreign Countries invade?
Size doesn’t matter. Well, at least not in terms of breaking up countries. If the USA breaks up into many different countries, the odds of Russia, China, Mexico, whatever, invading those pieces are tiny. All these countries have their own massive issues to deal with. There is also no reason that the independent America’s would not band together to repel any foreign invasion.
Well what about the Nuke’s?
Again, this makes no sense. When the Soviets broke up, Ukraine became the 3rd largest Nuclear holder in the entire world. The Ukrainians did not start throwing Nukes around, did they? Nobody is going to start a nuclear war because of deterrence. Ukraine also did not fall to the Russian’s as soon as they gave up their weapons.
