An Alternative to Politics: Agree to Disagree

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. ~Thomas Jefferson

In my last two posts, I asked 1). how Republicans, given their long record, are better than Democrats, and then 2). briefly explained why I consider Democrats to be completely delusional and destructive. I concluded with a proposal to solve our irreconcilable political differences:

“we should just agree to disagree. Don’t force your ideas on us through the government. Do what you want to yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone”

Opposing agendas cannot be forced on the same region at the same time, much as one cannot move in opposite directions simultaneously. When people compete via democracy to use the government to impose agendas on others, there will be some who are forced to live under an agenda they may largely or entirely oppose.

Our differences are irreconcilable and substantial- we’re talking about completely different rules for society, not a few small quibbles. And that’s why the only solution is agreeing to disagree. You do things your way, and I’ll do things my way. We’ll not try to force our agenda on each other. This is the civilized, moral way to deal with conflicts we cannot resolve.

Of course, this is not a solution in dealing with crime (e.g. theft). Force is required to deal with acts of aggression. But all other issues should be subject to agreeing to disagree when we can’t agree.

How can we begin doing this? Presently, most of us are trying to impose our agenda on others, through the government, on millions of people, rather than a more local area. Whenever a “national” agenda is legislated by the federal government, it’s being imposed on hundreds of millions of people over a vast area of millions of square miles.

Therefore, one way we can begin agreeing to disagree is to restore a federal system of government as the Constitution originally gave us. Issues that have been dealt with at the “national” level can go back to more local regions. Of course, we should not stop with our decentralization there. Further localization is surely desirable, right down to the individual level.

Take the New York “soda ban” for example. I believe this is extremely stupid policy, and a violation of the rights of anyone living there. I would advocate decentralization, allow individuals or restaurants to decide whether to ban sodas for themselves, i.e. repeal the soda ban. But look on the positive side; though it’s not much of one for New Yorkers: the soda ban is not being imposed on the rest of the state, let alone the whole country. So at least we have a partial case of agreeing to disagree.

Our differences are much greater than a soda ban. As I said, we envision completely different rules for society, because of our fundamentally different understandings of economics and individual rights. Ignoring this and attempting to bind everyone under centralized political control is a recipe for friction, irrationality, and mass injustice. Let’s work to take issues out of politics and deal with them between each other, agreeing to disagree when that isn’t possible.

Senator Feinstein Is Offended by a Good Question

Senator Cruz asks Diane Fienstein, the key Senator pushing new gun bans, a good Constitutional question. Unfortunately for Feinstein, it’s a hard question to answer, so she tries not to answer at all. Instead, she acts personally offended, says she has been in Washington for years, says her views should be respected even as she “respects” ours, blah, blah, blah. (If she actually respected our views, she wouldn't be using the force of the state to impose her views on the rest of us).

Everything she said could be said by someone claiming it was constitutional to ban certain books or religions, or to in some situation suspend the fourth amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights for some reason. Feinstein is about to admit this.

Cruz insists on an answer: if there are exceptions to the second amendment what about the others? Okay, now she answers, "...obvious, no", before trotting out the child pornography card as an example that all rights can be restricted. Dick Durbin then joins in condemning the idea of absolute rights. And since they are not absolute, they are not really rights at all, as the Democratic Senators demonstrate. The government can restrict them however they like.

They are wrong. A good understanding of natural rights really helps clear up issues like this.

White House Responds to Secession Petitions

From the beginning I had mixed feelings on the secession petitions that followed Obama's reelection. On the one hand, they are an insult to our sovereignty; there's no need to ask. Did Thomas Jefferson beg George III for permission? Of course not. Additionally, the petitions appeared to be a mere outlet of frustration over the election rather than a serious desire to secede.

On the other hand, though, resurrecting this forbidden topic is a good thing, as it provides important educational opportunities. I was particularly looking forward to the White House's reaction, even though it was going to be entirely predictable and wrong. Let's examine their main arguments:

[A]s we value a healthy debate, we don't let that debate tear us apart.

Actually, it depends on the debate. Sometimes that is not necessary, other times it is. A husband and wife shouldn't let themselves be torn apart by some petty argument. But we can all agree there are times where divorce is appropriate. Same with secession.

Our founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States "in order to form a more perfect union" through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. They enshrined in that document the right to change our national government through the power of the ballot -- a right that generations of Americans have fought to secure for all. But they did not provide a right to walk away from it.

Here we have the White House getting one of the most basic aspects of the Constitution backwards. In reality, the federal government is the one whose powers are limited to what is expressly granted, while the people and their states retain all other powers. So, the absence of a provision to "walk away" is no argument against secession.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
~James Madison, The Federalist No. 45

Beyond this, there is yet another layer of defense for the right of secession. If you're going to accept the legitimacy of the Declaration of Independence, then it doesn't matter what the Constitution says in the first place.

Back to the White House response:

As President Abraham Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861, "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual."

Lincoln made this up. He is wrong. The Constitution doesn't even claim to be perpetual. Perpetual, in 18th-century diplomatic language meant “lacking a built-in sunset provision”, not "lasting forever", as historian Tom Woods noted recently.

And if it did, so what? That doesn't mean such a claim is legitimate, that some people of one generation can forever bind future generations to a "social contract". I thought "progressives" believed in change, anyway. The "Union" should not be some object of religious veneration, it should be a means to an end rather than an end in of itself.

In the years that followed, more than 600,000 Americans died in a long and bloody civil war that vindicated the principle that the Constitution establishes a permanent union between the States. 

Translation: Might makes right.

And shortly after the Civil War ended, the Supreme Court confirmed that "[t]he Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

So, the federal government says, "You're stuck with me". Well, duh, what institution is not going to rule in it's own favor?

The remainder of the White House response is just some mumbo-jumbo praising democracy.

Conclusion

As expected, arguments against the right of secession crumble easily: they are always weak, false, or barbaric (e.g. the "might makes right" argument, a.k.a. "the Civil War settled it"). It doesn't matter if one thinks secession is prudent in one case or another. It is merely the right of secession that is being discussed here, and rejected by the Obama administration.

The right of secession is easy to defend. Simply point to the Declaration of Independence and your opponent will not be able to come up with a coherent rebuttal. Because there is none. That's why, with these ideas finally getting un-buried again, we should eventually see a collapse in the anti-secession mentality that has prevailed for 150 years. And that's good news for our liberty.