Personal Secession Ė The Way to Freedom
Michael S. Rozeff
by Michael S. Rozeff: Is
Greece the Future of America?
and groups in California want to ban
male circumcision, and they are getting measures placed on local
ballots for voting.
there is some sort of law about the teaching
of the creation of man in the public schools that has people
who dislike that law all riled up and seeking repeal.
Women in Egypt
divided between those who favor sharia law for Egypt and those
who favor secular law.
The State of
Arizona has a law that legalizes medical marijuana. The Governor
the State of Arizona against this law because it conflicts with
missiles and bombs at targets in Iraq" in March of 2003,
an action of which 25 percent of Americans disapproved at the time.
That figure rose to 53 percent within 8 months.
What do the
above items have in common?
They all involve
laws approved of by some and disapproved of by others. In all cases,
there are winners and losers. The winners get their favorite laws
passed. The losers have to obey.
In all cases,
the losers have no choice.
You canít smoke
in a bar. You must use a bicycle helmet. You cannot use an incandescent
light bulb. You cannot place phosphates in soap. You must use a
front-loading washing machine. Your shower cannot pump at above
a specified rate. Your toilet cannot go above a specified number
of gallons. You must pay taxes for government programs. You must
accept Federal Reserve Notes in payments. A bank must report cash
transactions over a specified size. You cannot buy marijuana. You
cannot simply buy a gun.
is banned in San Francisco, those who want to circumcise their babies
will have to go elsewhere. In Louisiana, the public schools, and
maybe even private schools who canít find an exemption on some grounds,
will teach what the legislature tells them to teach. In Egypt, either
sharia law will be in or it will be out, for everyone. In the individual
states, either they will be allowed to pass medical marijuana laws
or else the federal law will be the rule. Clinton, Bush, and Obama
and the Congress will launch their missiles wherever they please
even if large numbers of Americans disapprove, and they will extract
the resources to do this in the form of taxes whether you like it
all involve voting and democracies, but the same division between
winners and losers occurs in other forms of government such as monarchies
They all have
in common that there are always groups of people who want to impose
their views on everyone. They all have in common that every such
group aims to use government as the instrument to fulfill their
I feel sorry
for the human race. The thinking and emotional makeup of most people
are so impoverished that they cannot find a way to live without
imposing their views on as many other people as they can. It is
not enough for them to preach their views. They feel they have to
pass a law or somehow use the government to make everyone else conform
to their wishes.
I felt sadness
when I read about the woman pushing for a circumcision law. It doesnít
matter what her reasons are. Everyone always comes up with reasons.
Bush had his reasons. Obama has his reasons. The Louisiana legislators
had their reasons. Iím not debating the reasons or the substance
of any of these many debates. Iím not interested in choosing up
I feel sad
because the desire to pass a law and impose oneís own views on everyone
else is, to my way of thinking, so stupid, so ignorant, so limited
in vision, so immoral, so anti-human, so devoid of understanding,
so unloving, so distorted, so anti-freedom, so anti-voluntaristic,
so anti-individual, so unreasonable, so intolerant, and so against
in its present condition is a factory that constantly manufactures
new kinds of ropes, manacles, gags, and handcuffs with which it
binds everyone. This is what most people accept.
I am amazed,
totally amazed, that people do not see or admit the contradiction
between the American rhetoric of freedom and what actually goes
down, and between that rhetoric and their own attempts to vote in
the candidates of their choice and impose their programs on everyone
instrument of government, there are countless groups and political
parties organized with the sole purpose of making slaves out of
everyone. Is this not a self-evident truth? No, it is not, because
every such group and party attempts to provide reasons why its program
is a good thing. They would bitterly dispute my contention that
their aim is to impose slavery on everyone.
for all cannot coexist with freedom. They are mutually exclusive.
Let those who
wish to build missiles and shoot them into Tripoli do so at their
own cost and risk and for themselves only. Let those who wish to
form and pay for a military that trains every nation on earth how
to interdict drugs do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves
only. Let those who wish to form a legislature that enacts their
version of religion do so at their own cost and risk and for themselves
only. Let those who wish to pass a law that forbids drug use do
so for themselves only. Let those who wish to pass a law that forbids
circumcision do so for themselves only. Let those who wish to tax
themselves and give the proceeds away to those in need do so for
themselves only. Let those who wish to guarantee medical care for
all those in their group do so at their own cost and risk and for
If we actually
want freedom and not slavery, we cannot have one government for
all. Freedom and one government for all are inconsistent with one
another. They contradict one another. To have one government and
simultaneously to have freedom is an impossibility.
To arrive at
greater freedom, one has to have the freedom to remove the manacles
imposed by a government that presumes to be the government for all.
One has to be able to opt out of government laws. One has to be
able to secede personally from a government.
manifests oneís personal freedom to choose a government (or no government)
of oneís desires, by oneself or in association with other people.
reading on personal secession and secession by groups, one can use
a search engine. After writing the above, I searched on secession
movements. One site that came up was secession.net.
Their statement of principles is well worth reading. They advocate
something close to personal secession, namely, community-based secession.
The difference between them is trivial.
this site writes
OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE
political right of the individual and of political communities
must be to secede from any larger political entity, whether they
were born into it, were forced to join it, or voluntarily joined
it. If one denies or relinquishes that right, one is little more
than a slave--and no agreement to become a slave can be legally
or morally binding.
of individuals and communities does not have to mean war and violence.
It should be a natural evolutionary feature of all political entities.
Communities can form networks or confederations, since secession
is accepted by both in principle. However, communities will not
form "federations" which by definition do not allow secession.
We will suggest practical and nonviolent means by which such separation
can occur and the kinds of networks and confederations that could
be created to replace oppressive nation states.
In the name
of nationalism, religion, ideology, tradition or "the common good,"
the governments of the world suppress individual liberty and individuals'
control of their own communities. Special interest- corporate-
state- bureaucratic- military elites worldwide tax, regulate,
bully, beat, prosecute, jail and execute citizens into submission.
They discriminate against, rob, ethnically cleanse and genocide
members of oppressed racial/ethnic/religious/regional groups.
Without government control, these elites would have little real
power over individuals and communities.
of individual liberty is simple: individuals should be free to
do whatever they please as long as they don't harm others by using
force or fraud. This is the basic ethical tenet or "golden rule"
of all religions, one corrupted by layers of theology and ritual
and centuries of kowtowing to political authority. Individual
consentĖnot some nationalist, racial, religious, tribal or, ideological
construct or "social contract"Ėis the only legitimate
basis of any social, economic and political organization. However,
supporting the idea and value of individual liberty is not enough
to obtain liberty. We must support institutional structures that
make it impossible for public or private entities to crush individual
secession with the U.S. governmentís notions of "security"
and "democracy" and "welfare" for all of America.
The U.S. vision is actually a highly limited vision that pretends
to be a universal vision. Its thrust is to the common and general.
It is certainly a monopolistic vision. Ultimately, it is a static
and one-sided totalitarian vision. A totalitarian vision within
the United States is continually being enacted and made real. It
is not that of Orwell or Huxley although some of their elements
are present. At present it is a suffocating and deadening vision
in which political correctness holds sway and in which government
makes countless rules that control many aspects of life, while allowing
outlets in certain directions that vent the pressures. The governmentís
vision is of oneness, sameness, monotony, regularity, perfect safety
and security, regimentation, and boredom. It crushes the personal
and the individual.
The U.S. government
is even making strenuous efforts to promote this vision in foreign
is not freedom. It is the suppression of freedom. This takes different
forms in different countries. In America, the current obsession
is with security and safety in every aspect of life. The government
intrudes everywhere with these as its rationales. This is the American
allows for multiple visions of life and living. It allows for dynamism,
creativity, personal development along new lines, invention, discovery,
and adventure. It allows for variation and newness. It allows for
development along unexpected lines. It allows for mistakes and learning
from mistakes, new and untried ventures, new ways, new customs,
and new ideas. It allows for personal risk-taking. It emphasizes
the personal and individual. It is pluralistic. It is voluntaristic.
means freedom and all that freedom entails.
S. Rozeff [send him mail]
is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.
He is the author of the free e-book Essays
on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book
The U.S. Constitution
and Money: Corruption and Decline.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Michael S. Rozeff