Abraham Lincoln and secession

Another long blog arguing that secession is a Good Thing.

Secession creates better governments
If you want to choose your own form of government, you need a way to leave the previous forms. That means the freedom to secede. Without this, you are unable to find better ideas for running a country. America is the best example of secession (it seceded from British rule) and is now the wealthiest country on earth. Norway is another good example (it seceded from the Kalmarian Union in 1814, and from Sweden in 1905.) Norway now has the highest standard of living and social justice on earth.

Objection: secession is not necessary – you can just emigrate
Often, no suitable nation is available. And emigration can be very expensive, especially if your business and skills are based on your location. Secession is often either the only way to innovate, or the most practical way.

Objection: many attempts at secession fail, or lead to wars
Most failed secessions are because the previous "owner" goes to war to regain the territory. The anti-secessionists are the bad guys. They start the wars. The secessionists are the good guys. They just want to be left in peace.

Objection: what about the American Civil War?
The confederate states tried to secede in 1960-81, but the northern stets then conquered them in war. We cannot know if secession would have been more profitable for both parties because it was never allowed to continue.

Lincoln’s objection (1): secession would show that the American experiment had failed
The American experiment was to allow people to chose their own government. If the south had been able to secede, it would show that the experiment worked. Instead, the experiment failed, and the people were forced to accept a government they did not want.

Lincoln’s objection (2): secession means disintegration
Secession does not mean disintegration. It means freedom. Secession simply allows people to choose the optimum size and type of government. Large, divided governments break up as they should, and small, inefficient governments join together for mutual benefit. The American experience demonstrated this fact – states wanted to join the union more often than they wanted to leave.

American civil war objection: secession would not have freed the slaves
The north the civil war largely because it had more money. A free society is more efficient than a slave-based society. Slavery fails for economic reasons - this would have been even more obvious if the two sides had been allowed to develop separately. Britain had already given up slavery for the same reason. The topic is a detailed one and leads to endless arguments about the econbomy of the south, so I won't go into more details here.

Objection: secession will destroy democracy!
The arguments against secession are the same as the arguments against democracy itself: "the people are stupid!" "there will be no continuity!" Yet democracies are almost always wealthier and more stable than their previous political forms (usually monarchies).

Objection: governments that allow secession cannot make long term plans, in case people leave?
Governments are like major legal or construction firms. Large buildings or mortgages often take twenty-five years or more to be paid for. At any time, customers can (and sometimes do) declare themselves bankrupt or leave the country. But this destroys their reputation and credit rating with other businesses, so people (and businesses) tend to stay and pay their debts.

Objection: people can cause chaos by threatening to secede?
The cost of land rent, and the need for long-term trust, secession is very expensive. The existing government has the benefit of economies of scale, so can always offer a better deal. As a result, the threat of secession becomes an excellent way to ensure that a government serves its people, but the threat would rarely be acted out. The only people to secede would be those with a genuine reason to hate the government, and the insane. A government is better off without such groups.

Objection: a state is like a marriage – divorce should not be easy!
Divorce is never easy. It has high financial costs, it makes people miserable, and frequent divorce leads to stigma. However, forcing people to stay together against their will leads to despair and encourages abuse of all kinds. Even societies that ban divorce usually allow separation. If a state is like a marriage, then separation is the minimum we should allow.

Objection: smaller parts are inefficient?
Sometime smaller business units are more efficient. Small parts compete against each other. The increased competition can more than compensate for any loss of economies of scale. New technology makes the potential advantage even greater. If people can choose their own government, they will choose the size that offers the best advantages. Large states are like large businesses. They can often benefit from separating themselves into autonomous units. Businesses did this on a massive scale in the 1980s and 1990s, and called it ‘reengineering’ or ‘downsizing.’ In a free market, people either choose what works best, or they lose to those who do.

Objection: powerful states can still dominate weaker states?
If a powerful state makes life difficult for a weak state, or forces it to do things against its will, it acts as a master with a slave. This is fundamentally inefficient (is it a coincidence that no advanced society allows slavery within its borders?). It is more efficient for other states to form free alliances. So the free alliances will gradually replace the slave states.

Objection: democracy already allows us to experiment with new governments
In a typical democracy, a new government can only be formed if the majority agree. If a new idea is good but the majority cannot understand it, they will never agree with it, so it will never be tried. Governments are complicated. There may be a hundred different ways of implementing a new idea. So it can take many years for a good idea to be understood. This is too slow to keep up with changing opportunities and needs. In contrast, secession allows many new ideas to be tried simultaneously.

Objection: we already have the best way, it is Liberalism/Shariah/Christ/Marxism/Libertarianism/etc.
If so, the freedom to secede will let you practice it in exactly the way you want, and amaze the world with your great success. You have nothing to lose, unless you think the present system is the best possible.

Objection: "Pure democracy would be a disaster – the American founders knew it "
Secession is not democracy. Democracy is a system within a state. Secession is a principle that allows states to be created (and they can then choose to merge through alliances). They are not the same things. Secession allows people to experiment with different forms of government, it does not replace those forms.

Objection: free choice leads to no government at all?
Where there is no government, government fills the vacuum. For example, in every state where law breaks down completely, local warlords take over. When people are given a choice, they get rid of the warlords and choose a better government. The important thing is choice.