Tom raises a good point re the secession issue. Those who argue against secession must, in doing so, negate the entire notion of “contract” upon which the theory of the modern state rests. But if the state becomes, by our fictional “contract,” our “agent,” upon what philosophic or legal principle is the “principal” to be denied the authority to discharge the “agent?” The Declaration of Independence has logical consistency on this point.
Carry the statists’ position over to the business or legal world. If I, as an employer or client, hire you to be my agent or attorney to conduct matters on my behalf, and I later choose to terminate the relationship, is there any argument that could be advanced that would deny me such a right? Should I be able to terminate your agency authority to act in my stead only with your consent?
Such a proposition is further confounded by the fact that the state was never created out of a “contract” with its citizenry, but only as an act of conquest. Thus, the statists’ hostility to secession comes down to the absurd proposition that a mugger acquires a “right” to continue victimizing people until he, the mugger, chooses to quit.
8:37 pm on October 18, 2006
