If you’ve read my work over the past several weeks, you’ve probably noticed an increased fascination with secession/independence movements around the world. I think we’re at the very early stages of this developing trend, which will see nation-states across the world fracture for a variety of reasons. The historical significance of the political changes we’re about to live through cannot be overstated. As I wrote in last month’s piece, The Future Will Be Decentralized:
To conclude, I recognize that I’m making a huge call here. I think the way human beings organize their affairs will experience the most significant paradigm level shift we’ve seen in the Western world since the end of the European feudal system hundreds of years ago. That’s how significant I think this shift will be. There are two key things that need to happen for this to occur. The first is technological innovation, and that’s already happening. The second is increased human consciousness. As Thoreau noted, in order for us to have greater self-determination we need to be ready for it. Are we ready? I think we’re getting there.
While extremely significant, the Catalan independence movement is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a global drive toward political decentralization. For example, just today I came across another potential secessionist hotspot in an unexpected place, Brazil.
Bloomberg reports:
Inspired by the separatist vote in Catalonia, secessionists in three wealthy southern Brazilian states are redoubling their efforts to break away from the crisis-battered nation.
Residents of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Parana states are being called to vote in an informal plebiscite on Oct. 7 on whether they want independence. Organizers are also urging residents of the three states to sign a legislative proposal for each of their regional assemblies that would call for a formal, binding referendum. The non-profit group “The South is My Country” aims to mobilize a million voters in 900 out of the region’s 1,191 cities.
Cooler, whiter and richer than the rest of Brazil, these southern states have long nursed separatist ambitions. Rio Grande do Sul even briefly claimed independence 180 years ago. Few Brazilians expect the current movement to succeed any time soon, not least because it is prohibited by the Constitution. But the country’s deepest recession on record and a massive corruption scandal have exacerbated the region’s longstanding resentment towards the federal government in Brasilia. With just one year to go until general elections, the rekindling of separatist sentiment in the south is another indicator of the unsettled state of Brazilian politics.
Celso Deucher, the leader of The South is My Country, says the region contributes four times as much tax as it receives and suffers from a below-average level of political representation. He argues that such an unjust situation outweighs any legal concerns.
“Whenever the subject of separatism comes up, they ban it because the federal Constitution does not allow it,” he said. “But the law is not immutable.”
Rio Grande do Sul is currently immersed in a financial crisis and has lost much of its economic clout, according to Fernando Schuler, a professor of political science at Insper University in Sao Paulo.
“There’s a huge cultural detachment between the Tropicalia Brazil and the South,” he said. “The reasons for separation are solid, justifiable, but I don’t think they are viable.”
There are two aspects of the above story I’d like to address. First, is that, like Catalonia, the regions thinking about secession from Brazil are relatively wealthy. This is not insignificant and certainly worth thinking about when it comes to wondering what sorts of responsibility these regions should have to the former union should a peaceful breakup go forward. It’s also worth remembering that the leaders of the American revolution were also extremely wealthy. An Independence movement driven by wealthy factions doesn’t necessarily preclude the creation of a superior governing structure.
The second point relates to the fact that Brazil, like Spain, apparently provides no “exit option” for any province or region which decides it no longer wishes to be part of the nation-state. As such, this is by definition an oppressive and involuntary political relationship completely inappropriate to conscious human beings. As I explained in Monday’s post, all political associations should be voluntary and it’s absurd that people are simply born into nation-states that are assumed to be forever entities with no escape latch.
Nation-states aren’t eternal, nor should they be. The problem with nation-states is they refuse to accept this fundamental reality. As such, political dealings with the state get transformed into oppressive centralized relationships, as opposed to voluntary decentralized arrangements. It’s no surprise then that oppressive relationships work out less positively for the average person than voluntary ones where the citizen and local communities are sovereign and empowered.
In response to the Spanish King’s extraordinarily thuggish comments regarding Catalonia yesterday, I composed several tweets relevant to today’s discussion.
If a union no longer works you always need to have a way to leave. Whether marriage or political.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017
Spain’s constitution apparently does not allow a way out.
This is bondage and is actually patently insane.— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017
Humans have advanced in many ways in the past half century, but we haven’t really advanced at all when it comes to political systems.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017
Any nation-state constitution that claims there’s no way to separate from the centralized government is an unethical and anti-human constitution. You can’t hide behind unjust laws to defend political bondage. The sooner we recognize this truth and increasingly move toward voluntary political relationships, the better.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
Brazilians are very different than the Spaniards, and the Portuguese, for that matter.
If this gets serious momentum, there will be bloodshed.
Well known author and financial expert Doug Casey also thinks that this is the very beginning of the end for the “nation state” and the beginning of what he calls “phyles”. Phyles are groups of like minded individuals who have common goals working together to achieve them.
One note on your use of the word slavery. As Xpert pointed out yesterday “undermines the history of actual slavery.” More importantly, it is inaccurate for one important reason: if a resident of a political subdivisions doesn’t like being part of the larger nation, they are free to leave that subdivision or nation. A slave has no such freedom.
In other words, while a Catalonian may well prefer not to be a Spaniard, they still have the choice to not be either.
Anyway, I think this is one of those “greener grass” scenarios. it would probably be smarter to see how Brexit turns out before deciding whether separation is all it’s cracked up to be.
Another overlooked downside to smaller nations: it is much easier for multi-nationals or oligarchs to seize power. One downside to many of these trade treaties is that nations are no longer free to govern what happens *within their own borders* – even when it is in their citizens’ best interests.
“if a resident of a political subdivisions doesn’t like being part of the larger nation, they are free to leave that subdivision or nation. A slave has no such freedom.”
Btn, they are not free to leave the nation if they can’t afford to leave the nation. So a “debt slave”, is actually a slave. If anything I think it should be called “soft slavery”.
But that is still a form of slavery, and it is much easier to fully enslave a soft slave than it is to fully enslave a free man who has the financial wherewithal to leave the nation.
The more debt slaves the better, as far as the Banksters and their oligarchic overlords are concerned. That is why there was far more to the so-called “financial crisis” in 2008 than most people understand.
People read the word “crisis” and they automatically think “accident” and/or “unintentional”. Let me assure you that there was nothing accidental or unintentional about what occurred in 2008. I was in the securities industry for many years, and the “crisis” that wasn’t really a crisis, followed by the bailout, was the largest transfer of wealth (theft) in the history of mankind.
You seem to get upset when I refer to Obama as a “house negro”. But as soon as he picked Hank Paulson’s shine boy Geithner and the lifelong Rockefeller boot-licker known as Larry Summers as soon as he took office, I knew that’s exactly what he was. The same applies to Eric Holder.
BTW, the only reason I use “negro” after house is out of respect to Michael. If you ever met me in person I’d use the term that more accurately describes that piece of con artist shit. And I’d say it to his face if the opportunity ever presented itself.
BTN, I understand that you don’t like the comparison to slavery, and that’s fine, but I’d really like to keep the conversation here about the main point of the post. After all, the piece wasn’t titled “Why modern nation-states are the exact same thing as physical slavery.” They aren’t equivalent.
That said, I don’t agree with your premise that just because certain people with the resources and willingness to pick up and leave their homeland for another nation-state means they have political freedom. Why should a human being have to make such a choice? They shouldn’t. Rather, the nation-state itself should have to change, and the change I propose in one form or another is for there to be an exit option for various regions of a nation state should they wish to leave in overwhelming numbers.
Right now, Brazil and Spain claim their constitution does not allow the formation of new governments or political associations with autonomy within the borders of Brazil and Spain. I argue that this is a primitive concept and should be done away with. I don’t claim to know precisely what sorts of relationships should be offered, but I know that just claiming that a nation-state is eternal and forever indivisible is not just anti-human, but ultimately oppressive and historically ridiculous.
As far as your argument of can it work better, you are skeptical, while I am far more optimistic. That’s really just a matter of opinion, but I reiterate my comments from prior posts in which I argue a higher level of human consciousness is necessary to take the next giant leap into a more free, peaceful and decentralized world. I accept that merely breaking up into smaller units without higher consciousness and technology will not necessarily lead to a better world. I just happen to think we are growing into the consciousness and we already have the technology.
As always, time will tell.
So by Kreiger’s logic democracy is slavery. After-all, there will always be individuals that reject the state’s authority. Residents that rejected a separatist movement and are living under a new authority are also slaves. It’s similar to the President’s view on “fake news”. Today his press secretary confirmed that the President sees no difference in errors made by professional journalists with fake stories planted by adversaries who want to undermine the stability of American governance. Since all journalists will sometimes make mistakes, all news that’s disagreeable can be classified as “fake news”. In the same way all systems of governance that are disagreeable are slavery.
These are very interesting times my friend! Brilliant article you wrote back in Sept: “the future will be DeCentralized” and I think you’ve called it correctly. As the worlds population DeCentralized, we will need to keep moving forward with the old paradigm controllers dragging along behind us, kicking and screaming…. but still we move forward. Now is the time of action, AND…. being wary of “co-opting” of these movements.
What worries me about a lot of “freedom” lovers in Brazil is the connection with the Mises Institute here in the U.S. Most of these “libertarians” have either gone full blown Trump, alt-right, alt-light or ethno-nationalists. Very few have stayed principled and a lot of them sound like angry middle school boys on the internet.