Writes Joakim Kämpe:

You posted a blog piece on Catalonia and secessionism some days ago, and I had some views I wanted to share.

Throughout the years there have been many debates on what the correct libertarian strategy should be for achieving the libertarian goal. One of the strategies, and one that has been proposed in recent years by many libertarians, is the idea of secessionism: the breaking up of the nation state into smaller units as a way of achieving this. Even Mises proposed this in his book Liberalism, where he stopped short of allowing individuals to secede from the nation because of technical considerations which made him believe that it was not possible. It was an achievement of Rothbard to show that it in fact was possible, and ethically correct.

In principle I can see nothing wrong with this argument of the right to secede, if the right to secede is given to individuals. However, I believe that accepting this principle as being correct, and supporting every secessionist movement that appears is not the same thing. In fact, far from what the blog post shows (which is actually just an email that was sent to you from a reader in Catalonia), the case with Catalonia is far more complex and not as one sided and sunshiny as it would appear.

First of all, to support the right of Catalonia to break free from the rest of Spain and create their own government if 51% of the population votes yes seems to me to have the same problems as any other democratic decision in that it ignores the property rights of the 49% that voted no, and is in the end support of democratic state coercion.

One can make the argument that it is good in the long run, that the end justifies the means, and so on; however, I think that this type of argument is against libertarianism. The only principally correct way to support the right of Catalonia to secede is, to me, to also at the same time support it only if all people and groups of people living under the new Catalonian state are given the same “right to secede” as Catalonia demands from Spain.

In the end, what it, as usual, boils down to is that this becomes an infected situation simply because of the fact that ownership/private property is not clearly stated and uncertain. The state, whether it is Spanish or Catalonian or Ruritanian, will always violate and invade property rights. Who “owns” Spain? Who “owns” Catalonia? Everyone? No one? It is not clear, and thus the situation of who is to decide over what becomes unclear and conflicts arise.

Clearly, the only correct application of the right to secession is to honor each person’s property right in himself and in his property, and allowing him to associate and dis-associate himself in whatever manner he chooses. Thus I would say it becomes a violation of the principle to support and promote the sort of secession stated by the E-mail writer, where a small majority supports subjecting a large minority to a new coercive state rule.

It is true that I can see some benefits (but also some negative aspects), and some might object and say that “If THEY don’t want to be a part of the larger nation, it makes no sense to force them to stay.” And it is right, it makes no sense, but it also makes no sense to force the 49% that voted no to live under a new nation. As stated above, as soon as ownership is uncertain, conflicts arise, and without clear and recognized property boundaries, these conflicts are very hard, if not impossible, to solve.

I think the correct strategy, at least one that anarcho-capitalists should strive to promote and support, is individual sovereignty instead of collective sovereignty. The fact is that people in promoting the sort of secessionism as stated by the E-mail writer, and in stating that “they” don’t want to be part of a larger nation, are still promoting collectivism, and grouping people into acting collectives. And they are still promoting the right of the majority to rule over the minority.

For minarchists, I see no contradiction in supporting this type of secession, since minarchists have the (according to me, false) belief that the state is necessary, but that smaller states are better than big ones (but again that falls into the ends justify the means argument). However, for anarcho-capitalist to support it I believe would be unprincipled and incoherent.

Just my two cents. Keep up the good fight for liberty!

The Best of Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.