The problem with this is, and one reason I insist on the right of unilateral secession, is that the seceding party will inevitably be in the minority, and if the majority has an expectation of a revenue transfer, or other advantage, from the party wishing to secede, as in the case in 1861, they will (unjustly) oppose that secession.
Have you read Hoppe's book? Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order -- It begins with an absurd attack on logic which would be worthy of Non-Sequitur or WhiskeyPapa, but, unlike those two, he is not devoid of intuitive understanding. He makes, and I believe quite soundly, the case that if we are to have just governance, permission of unilateral secession is absolutely necessary.
Tell me why he is wrong.
The problem with this is, and one reason I insist on the right of unilateral secession, is that the seceding party will inevitably be in the minority, and if the majority has an expectation of a revenue transfer, or other advantage, from the party wishing to secede, as in the case in 1861, they will (unjustly) oppose that secession.
Can't you see how unfair that is?
It is not unjust to insist that --everyone-- pay into the debts incurred by all. If for no other reason than this, --unilateral-- secession is unfair. It is, as President Lincoln said, absurd and unjust. And when you look at our situation today, where the national debt is 6.2 trillion dollars -- how are you going to divvy that up fairly? You're not. And if one section tries to secede today, they'll face the same issues as in 1860-65. And there will be bloodshed again. We are stuck with each other, whether we like it or not.
To me it just seems incredible that anyone thinks that our problems can be gotten rid of by splitting up. Friends can make laws better than aliens can make treaties. Look at Europe. That's a great model for you. And that is what you would turn us into. It's nuts.Walt