Decentralization and Secession

States seek to perpetuate themselves by seizing more control of capital and human beings. Size makes this easier. And every regime would become a mega-state like China or the US if it could.

Antisecessionists insist that radical decentralization means more "nationalism" and protectionism. In practice, the exact opposite is more likely.

Much of the resistance to libertarian anarchic proposals stems from a genuine inability on the part of one’s audience to entertain such proposals as serious alternatives to the status quo.

Smaller countries have often been shown to perform better than large countries in terms of overall income and in economic growth. Also, their populations often enjoy more healthy and safe social environments.

In a large enough democracy, the impact of an individual vote is statistically zero on the margin. 

If opponents of the current ideological winds blowing in Virginia find themselves in a permanent minority, it may very well be that the only method of defending the minority position is by leaving the state. But "exit" can theoretically be obtained in more than one way.

Efforts to abolish the US Senate because it's "undemocratic" employ a very crude and dangerous type of majoritarianism.

Last month's election gave Boris Johnson a strong majority in Parliament, but two economic wildcards could trip his new government up.

Singapore left both the British Empire and Malaysia before finally becoming an independent city. It then proceeded to become one of history's most impressive economic success stories.

So long as we insist the federal government can force one law, one culture, and one sort of politics on all of America, the US is headed down the road of civil war. Only decentralization and separation can partly defuse the situation.