As our country is moving into some darker days, a lot of people like myself have been thinking of ways to bring about substantive change - not the campaign platitude variety. We're seeing the federal government abusing the Constitution in ways that would have shocked our forefathers of just a hundred years ago. The size of the federal government is also becoming less and less sustainable with each bailout, entitlement, etc. Many people felt this, and that's why Obama was elected, but I think we'll get a rude awakening that we've basically changed nothing. We think our votes count, but really 49% (at least) of the electorate must equally accept the wide ranging rule of this man they didn't elect. What solutions do we have?
One of the founding principles of the United States was that the the Feds would only have some limited powers and all else was given to the states. Most states did likewise and gave power to the counties and so on. This is, of course, federalism. It worked great, and I contend that it still could if we gave it a chance. This allows us not only to shove off the burdens of government agency costs, but also we are more able to affect change to our actual condition. In the end, we need to reduce the federal government's powers so the 49% are not coerced into a completely different lifestyle than they'd like to live.
This idea, however, of less government is very unpopular with both flavors of Republicrats. How does one get votes without buying them with entitlement programs anymore? I've talked before about “Libertarian Marketing”, and I still think the concept has many holes. Another answer is secession. Yes, getting a state out of the Union.
This isn't as radical an idea as you may think. States challenge the federal government all the time. Think about the decriminalization of marijuana (where states ignore the DEA), the wide protests against the federal Real ID Act, or sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. These are plenty of legitimate state sponsored protests against federal law. The government doesn't have the authority to mandate that states enforce laws, look at the Federal Highway Act & National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The states that refuse to comply will have 10% of their federal highway money withheld from them, but nothing else.
Secession wouldn't come all at once. We've already started to protest certain laws, let's move to bills, or even whole US Code Titles. I'd love to see Title 26 ignored and listed on DumbLaws.com. They don't have enough federal agents to try to enforce all these laws. If state and local police don't cooperate, they're SOL. They can't roll tanks for public relations reasons, so it'd take the form of some type of trade embargoes I would think. Maybe not even that - why would the rest of the United States care? If New Hampshire or Vermont were to secede tomorrow, no one would notice.
There are a few things people argue against this concept, and some rebutals. Let's take a look:
Q: “If a state secedes, won't we have to deal with a whole different set of laws?”
A: Yes, but every state already has it's own laws, that's why lawyers take the bar in each state. If they just protested what they didn't like, the system would be quite similar to what exists today.
Q: “If a state secedes, how will it survive without the Federal government?” or “If a state secedes, won't that be a burden to the rest of the other states?”
A: Yes and no. If you look at this map of spending to taxation, you'll see some states like New Hampshire actually are subsidizing the rest of us, while others such as New Mexico are running on proverbial food stamps. The US will adjust to the lack of income, just as we don't “miss” non-existent states.
Q: “If a state secedes, they'll still have to pay for government programs like...”
A: That's true. Many federal offices and programs will be brought into the state, but what is wrong with that? States usually have their own versions of the same offices. These are already duplicating many of the same tasks – talk about diseconomies of scale. I'd prefer local control and innovation that fits best with the local people. The Department of Education has only been around since Carter. We put a man on the moon before that.
Q: “Isn't a state too small to be a self-sufficient economy?”
A: If you look at a list of national GDP's and one of state GDP's, you'll see some neat facts like how New Hampshire's GDP is more than Luxembourg's and California's is 40% larger than Russia's. I think they're doing just fine, so I don't see why a state economy couldn't function autonomously.
Q: “If a state secedes, won't their economy suffer?”
A: In the case of a soft secession, by protesting federal laws, many companies would actually benefit by moving there. Once it stabilizes, companies would not have to pay the ridiculous taxes they currently do, and won't have to deal with the slow moving wheels of federal government bureaucracy.
Q: “If a state secedes, won't they be getting free military protection?”
A: Yes, but Canada does already, and plenty of others around the world for that matter. The National Guard is another issue. I'm unsure of the effects on federal control, or even training of the Guard under hard and soft secessions.
These are a few things off the top of my head, but I'd love to get your feedback.