Sovereign De-centralization ("Secession") is a libertarian strategy whose time has come. by John Wingspread Howell
(libertarian)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
All the buzz about Sarah Palin's rumored affinity with the Alaskan Independence Party got me thinking. Why shouldn't Alaska delcare independence? They're a thousand miles away from their nearest neighboring "state." They have an economy that is the envy of-- well--the United States. Why do they need the other forty-nine? The fact is that just about any one of the United states, or any city or county or village in this country might be able to say the same thing. Why do we need the Federal Government with all its cumbersome regulations, taxes, deficits, rights violations, privacy intrusions, and international recklessness? What's in it for us to remain in the "Union?"
Until recently, quite a lot. From the Middle Ages until the information age, nationhood at least, empire at most, has been the standard geopolitical unit of civilization. Large populations and large land mass have been prerequisite for cultures and economies to prosper. A high density of population was required to create economies of scale as well as formidable armies. A large expanse of land was necessary to create physical buffers against external threats as well as for agriculture and natural resources. It was unwise and unsafe to be too small in numbers or in real estate. Small armies are easily vanquished. Small territories are easily occupied. Small economies quickly and frequently crash. It continued this way for hundreds of years.
But then, with the waning years of the twentieth century came the internet. The virtual world and the real world collided, overlapped, and eventually fused into something wild and wonderful called the World Wide Web. Suddenly we all found ourselves to be, however reluctantly, citizens of the "Global Village." It is pointless to debate the merits and demerits of a global economy. It is the new reality. Short of some sort of worldwide apocalypse that sends us back to the Stone Age, the commercial, political and social dynamics of globalism are here to stay. For the libertarian movement, this can be a very good thing.
The information age made all things possible. Any individual, company or community who is able to invent or manufacture a product, provide a service, or monetize knowledge in any form by any method can compete. Inventors and entrepreneurs working in the garage, the basement or a spare bedroom can compete with multinational corporations from just about anywhere in the world-- a mountain in Montana, a small town in Mississippi, a Megalopolis in Malaysia, and anywhere in between. Now all that is necessary to succeed in business is a good idea, a computer, and an internet connection. A million dollar or billion dollar business can be contained in and controlled from a tiny hand-held device.
Which brings us back to the question of Alaskan independence-- or of sovereignty for Quebec, or Kosevo, or Quincy, Massachutsetts. Globalism and the technology that gave it rise, have not only made it possible for micro-nations to exist and prosper, it has made small autonomous juristicions the most efficient vehicle for maintaining and advancing civilization. In the new world order there is a bipolar balance of power from Global to local with nothing in between. Now that technology has made virtual world travel instantaneous and virtually free, and actual travel faster than sound and cheaper than a week's groceries, what used to be considered strengths of the superpowers are not only now irrelevant but increasingly disadvantageous.
Thanks to the internet, whether companies or countries, the most successful and prosperous will be the small, the agile, and the adaptable. Empire and mega-conglomerate alike will find themselves too old, top-heavy, and unwieldy to respond to change. It is the beginning of the end for national government and multinational corporations, as both are known today. But that's not the end of the story. Expect the biggest and most powerful nations and their corporate counterparts to survive the longest, and fight the hardest to survive. And what do you think is their secret weapon? War!
They're doing it now aren't they? The War in Iraq. The War in Afghanistan. The threat of war with Iran. The War on Terror. The War on Drugs. And, the War on Poverty before that. War is war. It kills. It drains resources. It creates collateral devastation. And in the end, everyone loses. Still, they will try. But they will lose.They will lose because in the new world order, war is bad for business.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but if I am right and the paradigm shift has already begun to occur, the end to war as we know it will not be a result of an enlightened awakening. It will be for the same reason that until now, war has been the final arbiter of nationhood and commerce. Self interest.
In the new world order, business is the new war. Entrepreneurs are the new soldiers. In this global economy where anyone anywhere can buy anything from anyone else anywhere else with the click of a mouse or a PIN in touch-tones, virtually every soul in this world is a client or a potential client. It's just plain bad business to bomb your markets and shoot your customers.
So the new world order will look like this. On the macro side, the global marketplace. On the micro side, the local village. Keeping the two alive and in balance: the world wide web, or the next technology that will replace it.
Remember John Naisbitt's book MEGATREDS? Naisbitt was the first sociologist to understand the dynamics of the information age. Perhaps his best known observation is the dynamic of high tech/high touch. The socio-geopolitical manifestation of high tech/high touch is Global Village/local village.
As the world shrinks and markets expand the need for community, for control over one's own quality of life and one's destiny, for political empowerment to effect and guarantee the above intensifies. The wider world gradually transforms from a quilt of nations, a few of them dominant, one or two most dominant-- to a finely woven tapestry of micro-nations, city-states, autonomous rural districts, and private colonies. The common thread that keeps the tapestry together is the Web.
In the new world order, power flows to and concentrates in the local village because here, society functions at its most efficient scale and structure, where decisions are made by those who will be directly affected by them. I call this "societies of scale." Societies of scale are the opposite of economies of scale. They are micro. Economies of scale are macro. Because of the efficiencies and benefits of the macro economy, the micro society, by virtue of its ability to participate in the macro and function as a mainstay of the macro, is the quintessential social, cultural, political entity. Suddenly the attempt to govern or socially organize humanity on a larger scale is impossible.
All things human break down to the lowest socio-political denominator, concentrate in small pods rather than in large clusters. Human communities form and thrive at this level. Minimal government in any formal sense is required at this level, where society tends to automatically function under natural law. What small need for legislation there may be, to protect the physical property and safety and the political liberty of local citizens, can be enacted by volunteer delegates or by democratic referendum, and enforced and administered by a skeletal executive branch of government.
This works because liberty is maximized where government is localized. The impact of government's every act or policy is felt immediately and directly by those who enact the laws instead of the current arrangement where strangers govern other strangers from a great distance where their decisions have minimal if any impact on their own lives except to enrich in wealth and in power. And yes, this is already happening.
I've been to the mountain top, and I've seen the garden. It has started. It has begun. But this will not occur as quickly as it might without a little help. For those who wish to give the process a push, the strategy is simple. Dispersed secession, decentralized sovereignty-- The next American Revolution.
The next American revolution will not occur as the last one, with an army of rebels staring down the King's army, fighting over one piece of real estate at a time. The next American revolution will be a constellation of regions, counties, cities, towns and rural territories declaring their individual independence from the Federal government and from each other, synchronized but separate and equally sovereign. I can envision each of them making their first sovereign act the adoption of the U.S. Consitution as their own, as much as it still applies.
It is safe to assume that if we were to begin this revolution in the near future, the Federal government would not yet realize it has outlived its usefulness. It can be expected to fight back. No worry.
No single government or army can fight a thousand armies on a thousand fronts. The forces of devolving power put history on the side of a new generation of patriots. A generation X Paul Revere will go on Instant Messenger to warn all that "the Feds are coming", and in a thousand cities, towns and boroughs, the self-declared sovereign, New Americans will have the day.
Hard to imagine? How about this? The operative image to imagine here is one large person armed with a fly-swatter and a can of Raid fighting a swarm of wasps. If it is one wasp, or even five or ten wasps, the person would eventually win. If it is a thousand wasps all inside their hive and the person strikes hard and fast while they're all concentrated together, the person wins. But if the wasps are swarming, coming one or two at a time from every direction, the person is virtually unable to previal.
What if Denver and Houston and Minot and Gallup and Bennington, Vermont and Buffalo and Harrisburg and Wall Drug, South Dakota and a hundred other large cities and small towns all over America declared independence, renounced their citizenship, and declared themselves a sovereign entity? How would the government control so many diverse and scattered secessions? How likely is it that soldiers and national guards would take up arms against their own neighbors? Such a coordinated but independent movement is destined to succeed.
Hopefully in most cases it will be a bloodless revolution. As Libertarians we will not start a blood fight. But as Libertarians we will fight for life, liberty and happiness, and here is where we draw the line. Are you with me?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Wingspread Howell is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
