Are Constitutions and Federations like roach motels?

[Stravo]

The current Greek crisis has got me thinking about something that has always been in the back of my mind when thinking about things like the US Civil War and other similar crisis that involve the menber of a Republic or Federation wanting to secede. The usual answer seems to be you can't. Wars in fact can be fought to keep members who actively no longer want to be part of a Constitution or Federation from leaving.

This leads to the question whether Constitutions have the implicit understanding that once you are in you never get to leave. How fair is that?

If you are a member state of a Republic or similar alliance of states, and say you're interests are being actively countered by a majority of other member states and your own population is actively clammoring for secession as the only answer why should you not be allowed to leave? If the Confederation of states you belong to are now actively working against you whether it is trade regulations, taxes, or any other way that you can find yourself on the short end of the stick why can't you be allowed to leave?

If a Constitution (or any other similar binding document) lacks a provision for disolving the ties that bind, what moral or implied authority is there to keep a member state from breaking away?

[HMS Conqueror]

Consider how far down your definition of a "member state" goes. If I individually disagree with the policies of the government, do I have a moral right to take any land I own and secede? If you take "government by the consent of the governed" seriously, you probably have to admit that - but at that point you're basically an anarchist, so most people handwave some justification for governing without the consent of the governed instead.

In the particular Greek case, there is a mechanism for leaving the EU, and it's unclear whether the EU counts as a state in the first place, so it's muddier than usual.

[Simon_Jester]

When speaking of "government by the consent of the governed," I take "the governed" to be a collective noun. There will always be individuals who deem it in their interests that the law not apply to them; you can't have law at all if people can sign out of it at will- or if you do, then you can't have universal rights, because the only way to protect your society from individual seceders is to declare them outlaws who no longer enjoy legal protection.

How far down does my definition go? I would say that it only goes down to political and demographic units that are at least roughly the right size to be administrative divisions 'one level below' that of the state being seceded from. A province of a million people might reasonably wish to secede from a nation of fifty million, if it's being abused and harmed. A town of a thousand isn't big enough to make a claim like that- it does not represent a 'people' large enough to justify breaking the compacts binding the other people in the state.

For secession to be OK in my book, you have to meet two key conditions:
1) There is no viable way for the minority to get redress of grievances. This can be because all methods have been tried and failed, or because the situation is so lopsided that any fool can tell there won't be such redress (say, blacks in South Africa during apartheid).
2) There must be a real abuse of government power going on. The fact that a law you don't like exists is not enough; the law has to be clearly aimed at hurting your particular group disproportionately, or has to violate constitutional provisions that were agreed on, or something along those lines.

I'm a lot less uncomfortable with secessions in cases where the province did not agree to the current form of government- either because it was invaded and conquered, or because the form of government has changed due to a coup or something.

[HMS Conqueror]

so most people handwave some justification for governing without the consent of the governed instead.

When speaking of "government by the consent of the governed," I take "the governed" to be a collective noun.

There you go.

Greece, Taiwan, CSA, Sudetenland, Thirteen Colonies etc. are just a small part of the collective. They don't need to consent.

[Skgoa]

Um, every EU member state has the option to leave whenever it chooses to. IIRC its in the Maastricht treaty. It's just that this would be a very stupid thing to do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

so most people handwave some justification for governing without the consent of the governed instead.

When speaking of "government by the consent of the governed," I take "the governed" to be a collective noun.

There you go.

Greece, Taiwan, CSA, Sudetenland, Thirteen Colonies etc. are just a small part of the collective. They don't need to consent.

Learn to read you sniveling fool. He went on to say that there are two conditions which must be met before the social compact may be withdrawn from

1) No other redress is possible
2) Violation of the agreement in the form of oppression etc

He also listed a third condition in which the social compact was never necessarily valid in the first place: Involuntary annexation.

Greece can leave the EU any time it wants. The CSA was not being oppressed and started the civil war because the US got a president they did not like (if anything, they were the ones doing the oppressing. What with numerous threats to occupy the district of columbia etc if the "no due process for slaves recaptured in the north" amendment to the Fugitive Slave Act which allowed southern slave holders to shop for free blacks in Free-States was not passed, and other such bullying nonsense) and was the one to initiate hostilities by attacking the federal government after a bloodless secession. Taiwan is a conquered government in quasi-exile... it is weird. The Sudetenland was ethnic german and had been a point of contention for centuries and no one ever asked their consent. The thirteen colonies were subject to abuse and had no other redress.

No go fuck yourself you strawmanning little Stoat.

[Skgoa]

- The CSA had attacked US government property and personel. It also kept US citizens as slaves.
- Taiwan actually IS independent according to international law, since the People's Republic has no control over it. It's just that the PRC is so powerful; nobody wants to piss them of.
- IIRC the Sudetenland had a referendum, just like all the other disputed little bits of Germany/respective neighboring state. Some chose to be part of Germany, some chose not to.

[Simon_Jester]

so most people handwave some justification for governing without the consent of the governed instead.

When speaking of "government by the consent of the governed," I take "the governed" to be a collective noun.

There you go.

Greece, Taiwan, CSA, Sudetenland, Thirteen Colonies etc. are just a small part of the collective. They don't need to consent.

Conkers, "the majority" is a collective noun too. Do you mean to tell me that everyone is part of any majority?

A noun can be inclusive without being all-inclusive.

[mr friendly guy]

I am not sure if Taiwan changed its official policy recently, but throughout most of my life they claimed officially to still be the rulers of mainland China (even as they must realise on some level that it wasn't going to happen). So we are left with the weird situation where both sides were claiming not just parts of each others territory, but all of it. In that sense it seemed like a case of both sides wanting to rule the combine new entity, rather than having 2 separate states independent from each other.

Just for completeness, the ROC also claimed the territory of the Republic of Mongolia (aka Outer Mongolia), which the PRC no longer do.

[Coop D'etat]

For what its worth Canada tackled this problem in the aftermath of the very close Quebec succesion referendum of 1995. The federal government consulted the Supreme Court of Canada and eventual passed what's called the Clarity Act. This defined the rules by which the federal government would consider negioating with a province for its independance. The rules are

-The House of Commons has the power to decide whether a proposed succession referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;

-Any question not solely referring to secession is considered unclear from the outset;

- The House of Commons has the power to determine whether or not a clear majority has expressed itself in any referendum, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;

-All provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations; (important because large areas of Quebec is populated by First Nations who generally prefer to deal with the Canadian rather than the Quebec government).

- The House of Commons has the power to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;

- The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, which must be negiotated by the federal government and the provinces.

[Broomstick]

- The CSA had attacked US government property and personel. It also kept US citizens as slaves.

Actually.... no. Slaves were not citizens back when slavery was allowed in the US, and under some circumstances only counted as 3/5 of a person rather than a whole person. Free blacks were citizens, although hampered due to the laws favoring white male property owners - just like women, Natives, Asians, etc. were hampered by laws favoring while male landowners.

Now, kidnapping of free blacks did occur, but that was kidnapping a citizen, not strictly speaking the chattel slavery of the south.

Slaves did not because US citizens until after the emancipation proclamation, and that did not occur until after the US Civil War began.

[Skgoa]

And here I thought southeners abducting blacks in the north was one of the big issues leading up to the civil war...

[Broomstick]

Oh, it certainly was. However, kidnapping a runaway slave was, under the law, different than abducting a free black. A slave was not a citizen, he or she was property. The fugitive slave laws passed during the antebellum US were to return property to owners. The case of Dredd Scott vs. Sanford made it quite clear that merely being in a free territory or state did not make a slave into a free person.

The conflict, of course, was the problem of slave catchers not bothering to be sure if the people they captured actually were slaves or not. Also, abolitionists claiming any black person wandering around in free territory was free. Certainly, there were a lot of black people abducted, but how many of them were actual citizens vs. actual slaves will probably never be known.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh, it certainly was. However, kidnapping a runaway slave was, under the law, different than abducting a free black. A slave was not a citizen, he or she was property. The fugitive slave laws passed during the antebellum US were to return property to owners. The case of Dredd Scott vs. Sanford made it quite clear that merely being in a free territory or state did not make a slave into a free person.

The conflict, of course, was the problem of slave catchers not bothering to be sure if the people they captured actually were slaves or not. Also, abolitionists claiming any black person wandering around in free territory was free. Certainly, there were a lot of black people abducted, but how many of them were actual citizens vs. actual slaves will probably never be known.

Specifically because the Fugitive Slave Act was amended (under threat of the occupation of DC as I recall), to prevent those taken as runaways from getting due process. If a southerner went to Pittsburgh and claimed a free black as his slave, there was fuck-all that could be done about it.

[HMS Conqueror]

so most people handwave some justification for governing without the consent of the governed instead.

When speaking of "government by the consent of the governed," I take "the governed" to be a collective noun.

There you go.

Greece, Taiwan, CSA, Sudetenland, Thirteen Colonies etc. are just a small part of the collective. They don't need to consent.

Learn to read you sniveling fool. He went on to say that there are two conditions which must be met before the social compact may be withdrawn from

1) No other redress is possible
2) Violation of the agreement in the form of oppression etc

All of those can apply just as well to an individual or a town, which he says are too small to be able to leave. Usually these are not even asked to sign an agreement!

No go fuck yourself you strawmanning little Stoat.

Do you get these from a book or something? If you make them up yourself then you are rather more skilled here than you are at debating.

Conkers, "the majority" is a collective noun too. Do you mean to tell me that everyone is part of any majority?

A noun can be inclusive without being all-inclusive.

No, of course not. But "government by the consent of the governed" is very very different to "government by the consent of most of the governed".

For instance, slavery probably had majority approval in CSA, or Nuremberg Laws in Germany. But "government by the consent of the governed" in these contexts means "you shouldn't persecute blacks and jews, because they have to consent to what you're doing to them" rather than "that's a-ok provided they don't become 50%+1 of the population".

[Alyrium Denryle]

All of those can apply just as well to an individual or a town, which he says are too small to be able to leave. Usually these are not even asked to sign an agreement!

An individual can leave, and has many many avenues of legal redress if there is a problem. A town or municipality can in fact incorporate or disincorporate, and can petition larger governmental bodies in many instances to leave a small organizational unit such as a county under certain conditions. There is also precedent for parts of a state seceding and forming a new state.

Do you get these from a book or something? If you make them up yourself then you are rather more skilled here than you are at debating.

Funny. Last I checked I was one of the more respected posters, precisely because of my knowledge base and how well I argue. Juxtaposed against you... yeah. Looking through your posting history, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to not throw stones from a glass house.

And yes, the insults are all mine.

For instance, slavery probably had majority approval in CSA, or Nuremberg Laws in Germany. But "government by the consent of the governed" in these contexts means "you shouldn't persecute blacks and jews, because they have to consent to what you're doing to them" rather than "that's a-ok provided they don't become 50%+1 of the population".

Yeah, except in civilized countries, we have developed legal systems to protect people from the tyranny of majority rule.

In an anarchy, exactly how does a hated minority defend themselves? In the absence of laws and governments people have exactly those rights which they can defend by force of arms. A society in which individuals or even small governmental bodies can simply leave might as well be an anarchy, as the law ceases to have teeth. How is this preferable in the real world, as opposed to your ruggedly individualistic masturbation fantasies?

[HMS Conqueror]

All of those can apply just as well to an individual or a town, which he says are too small to be able to leave. Usually these are not even asked to sign an agreement!

An individual can leave, and has many many avenues of legal redress if there is a problem. A town or municipality can in fact incorporate or disincorporate, and can petition larger governmental bodies in many instances to leave a small organizational unit such as a county under certain conditions. There is also precedent for parts of a state seceding and forming a new state.

For instance, slavery probably had majority approval in CSA, or Nuremberg Laws in Germany. But "government by the consent of the governed" in these contexts means "you shouldn't persecute blacks and jews, because they have to consent to what you're doing to them" rather than "that's a-ok provided they don't become 50%+1 of the population".

Yeah, except in civilized countries, we have developed legal systems to protect people from the tyranny of majority rule.

In an anarchy, exactly how does a hated minority defend themselves? In the absence of laws and governments people have exactly those rights which they can defend by force of arms. A society in which individuals or even small governmental bodies can simply leave might as well be an anarchy, as the law ceases to have teeth. How is this preferable in the real world, as opposed to your ruggedly individualistic masturbation fantasies?

An individual or a town cannot opt out of (in US case) Federal law. And yes you can illegal secede - topic of the thread is in what circumstances is it ok, and I'm asking why is it not always ok? You seem to recognise at least some conflict between individual rights and majority rule, but the question is why shouldn't one dominate? Well, if democracy dominates you get weird things like having to accept oppression of minorities and other obviously immoral acts as being ok. And if individual rights win...? nb: that's a different question to "how could it be enforced?" - although that question is also very interesting.

Do you get these from a book or something? If you make them up yourself then you are rather more skilled here than you are at debating.

Funny. Last I checked I was one of the more respected posters, precisely because of my knowledge base and how well I argue. Juxtaposed against you... yeah. Looking through your posting history, perhaps it would be a good idea for you to not throw stones from a glass house.

And yes, the insults are all mine.

You shouldn't confuse post-count with respect, or respect with achievement. I don't internetdebate to make friends (although I see no reason not to be civil), but to test my ideas against intelligent people who disagree with me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You shouldn't confuse post-count with respect, or respect with achievement. I don't internetdebate to make friends (although I see no reason not to be civil), but to test my ideas against intelligent people who disagree with me.

And you fail at it miserably.

I am not referring to post-count (if you knew how to read, not once did I mention it), but the quality and content of your posts. I was forged in the intellectual crucible of this board, and have a rather extensive knowledge base upon which I operate including formal training in biology, and somewhat less extensive formal training in philosophy and the social sciences. To claim I debate poorly based on nothing but your claim that is is such, is indeed to throw stones from a glass house.

An individual or a town cannot opt out of (in US case) Federal law.

Would you have a society where they can? What would a law be if it did not apply to everyone. Say I commit a felony classified as federal... oh, I dont know... say I blew up a government building. Should I then be able to opt out of federal law to avoid punishment?

No. The only way for an individual to opt out is to leave the territory in question. That is their final redress. Is it right for an individual to "opt out" of law, while still living and benefiting from the society who's laws they scorn?

The same logic goes for a town or city. They are never self sufficient. Ever. They depend for many services on the larger organizational unit to which they belong and in turn to the next up the chain. Why should they benefit and pay none of the cost or be held to any of the obligations? And dont give me any bullshit about how they can become self-sufficient either. They could not afford to maintain their roads for example.

Well, if democracy dominates you get weird things like having to accept oppression of minorities and other obviously immoral acts as being ok.

Did you miss the part about legal restraints on the power of majority rule? Are you even literate? Please in future, address the argument given, rather than the one that exists only in your head.

if individual rights win...?

Life would be nasty, brutish, and short if individual liberty was completely unrestrained. I would recommend the works of John Locke.

[HMS Conqueror]

You shouldn't confuse post-count with respect, or respect with achievement. I don't internetdebate to make friends (although I see no reason not to be civil), but to test my ideas against intelligent people who disagree with me.

And you fail at it miserably.

You don't disagree with me, or you're not intelligent?

I am not referring to post-count (if you knew how to read, not once did I mention it), but the quality and content of your posts. I was forged in the intellectual crucible of this board, and have a rather extensive knowledge base upon which I operate including formal training in biology, and somewhat less extensive formal training in philosophy and the social sciences. To claim I debate poorly based on nothing but your claim that is is such, is indeed to throw stones from a glass house.

I said you were better at insulting people than debating, not that either was necessarily poor. Both are above the average.

Well, if democracy dominates you get weird things like having to accept oppression of minorities and other obviously immoral acts as being ok.

Did you miss the part about legal restraints on the power of majority rule? Are you even literate? Please in future, address the argument given, rather than the one that exists only in your head.

Yes - they are conflicting. At the moment we have a somewhat random collection of things that are put more-or-less above the political fray in different places. In US, they are decently defined and fairly clearly enforced. In Europe, less so. In some countries there are none.

The question is why put some things above the fray, and which things?

if individual rights win...?

Life would be nasty, brutish, and short if individual liberty was completely unrestrained. I would recommend the works of John Locke.

For the time-being it doesn't matter what the consequences are. It's perfectly valid to say, "Ideally we would have this, but it wouldn't turn out very well, so instead we'll get as close as possible without <succumbing to gang warfare/becoming North Korea>". And then we can think about how close we can get, and how to do that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You don't disagree with me, or you're not intelligent?

No. You are just bad at it.

I said you were better at insulting people than debating, not that either was necessarily poor. Both are above the average.

You may want to increase the acceleration of your backpedal. You were damning with faint praise, and you know it.

The question is why put some things above the fray, and which things?

1) The law must impose equal protection and equal obligation on everyone. Basic ethical principle of fundamental fairness there.

2) The law must not inhibit, in a democratic state, the ability of interested parties to participate and exchange ideas. This is one of those definitional things.

3) Trials etc must be fair and everything that goes along with it, and no one individual or group should have too much power. Why? Because one must recognize the weaknesses inherent in humans, and take steps to counter them. Additionally, if you do not do this, what exactly is the point of having a government at all, if its decisions can be as capricious as a bandit on the street?


The US Bill of Rights, 14th amendment, and certain treaties deal with these things in writing fairly well, and everything in them dealing with the individual liberties of its citizens can be derived from these three basic ideas singularly or in combination. The actual application... that is another story. But again, that is what the democratic and legal processes are for. Redressing grievances rising from violations of these tenants.

[HMS Conqueror]

You may want to increase the acceleration of your backpedal. You were damning with faint praise, and you know it.

And I still am, in case you haven't noticed.

The question is why put some things above the fray, and which things?

1) The law must impose equal protection and equal obligation on everyone. Basic ethical principle of fundamental fairness there.

2) The law must not inhibit, in a democratic state, the ability of interested parties to participate and exchange ideas. This is one of those definitional things.

3) Trials etc must be fair and everything that goes along with it, and no one individual or group should have too much power. Why? Because one must recognize the weaknesses inherent in humans, and take steps to counter them. Additionally, if you do not do this, what exactly is the point of having a government at all, if its decisions can be as capricious as a bandit on the street?


The US Bill of Rights, 14th amendment, and certain treaties deal with these things in writing fairly well, and everything in them dealing with the individual liberties of its citizens can be derived from these three basic ideas singularly or in combination. The actual application... that is another story. But again, that is what the democratic and legal processes are for. Redressing grievances rising from violations of these tenants.

US protects some individual rights. More modern documents (like treaties) don't like the notion of absolute rights, and just say you have a right for your interest group to have its importance weighed against other interest groups, a process which may or may not come out on your side.

It's more stuff like: 51% of people don't think you should watch porn, so the rest of you can't. Is this ok? The 'democratic' answer is, yes, the majority approve. The 'liberal' answer is, no, watching porn doesn't harm anyone else, so you should be able to watch it if you want.

In fact almost every political issue involves a clash like this.

[Alyrium Denryle]

US protects some individual rights. More modern documents (like treaties) don't like the notion of absolute rights, and just say you have a right for your interest group to have its importance weighed against other interest groups, a process which may or may not come out on your side.

Another bald-faced lie (or you just have not done your research). All the major humanitarian treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture are spelled out in no uncertain terms.

It's more stuff like: 51% of people don't think you should watch porn, so the rest of you can't. Is this ok? The 'democratic' answer is, yes, the majority approve. The 'liberal' answer is, no, watching porn doesn't harm anyone else, so you should be able to watch it if you want.

And the opinion of courts applying the right to free speech (which includes the production of art), has consistently said "No. People may view porn provided the individuals involved have brains old enough to give meaningful consent"

Do your fucking research.

[VarrusTheEthical]

To the OP, in regards to the US constitution. State can't enter the Union without the the consent of Congress. So it would suggest that states cannot leave the Union without Congress' consent as well. Which to me, seems more like a contract rather than a "roach motel".

[Korto]

When it comes to tiny areas declaring themselves independant, like towns or even properties owned by individuals, "fairness and morality" doesn't come into it. It's too damaging to the nation as a whole to allow it. If a single area the size of a state decided to seccede, then it can be dealt with. The nation wont like it, as it weakens the nation, but it can be dealt with. Take that same area, break it up into town-sized portions and scatter it across the entire nation (with particular referance to the good bits) and you've got chaos.
That's even assuming the secceder's mean what they say, instead of what they almost certainly really mean by "independance" which is "We still receive the benefits of your defense, law and order, health care, infrastructure, and anything else we want, we just don't pay taxes for it anymore."

Mind you, I find it difficult to imagine a large area being allowed to leave under any other system currently known than democracy, due to the weakening of the greater state it causes. Anyone want to imagine Georgia telling the old USSR it wants to leave? You would need circumstances like the area that wants out is a significant net loss, and/or a VERY large payment is made preferably when the greater nation is quite desperate. Even democracies loathe giving up land.

Although Alyrium Denryle, I don't see someone committing a crime and then declaring themselves independant to be a problem. When they committed the crime, they were on the nation's soil, and any nation has the right to pursue crimes committed on their own soil. If he declared himself independant first (and due to some insanity, the nation accepted it), that still applies. If he declared himself independant (the nation accepts this, yeah, right), and the "crime" was then committed on his own, independant, land, then it's only a crime if he says so (although we've entered the Twilight Zone here); the larger nation could consider it an act of war.

Edit - PS - I actually said part of that above badly. Non-democratic nations have allowed areas to leave; the US bought land off France, for example. However, I would believe the above conditions would apply in most if not all cases - Land is net loss, large payment made.

[Simon_Jester]

Mind you, I find it difficult to imagine a large area being allowed to leave under any other system currently known than democracy, due to the weakening of the greater state it causes. Anyone want to imagine Georgia telling the old USSR it wants to leave? You would need circumstances like the area that wants out is a significant net loss, and/or a VERY large payment is made preferably when the greater nation is quite desperate. Even democracies loathe giving up land.

The USSR fell apart when it reached a point where enforcing tyranny was no longer practical, without becoming a real democracy. There are and have always been different degrees of dictatorship.

But that doesn't really undermine your point to speak of.

Although Alyrium Denryle, I don't see someone committing a crime and then declaring themselves independant to be a problem. When they committed the crime, they were on the nation's soil, and any nation has the right to pursue crimes committed on their own soil. If he declared himself independant first (and due to some insanity, the nation accepted it), that still applies. If he declared himself independant (the nation accepts this, yeah, right), and the "crime" was then committed on his own, independant, land, then it's only a crime if he says so (although we've entered the Twilight Zone here); the larger nation could consider it an act of war.

You could still come up with ways for this to be an issue. I might declare my property independent so that I could set up businesses that would be illegal in the nation as a whole; I leave it to you to think of examples. Or I might declare local indepedence so I can commit a crime on my own property, so to speak- say, a domestic abuser might want to do that to get legal issues off their back. Or I might want to secede so I can reorganize society on the lines of my religion of the week- this was a huge factor in the colonization of North America, but it also led to a lot of places in North America being full of wonky religions that felt entitled to control land, and some of thiose religions mpose harsh restrictions on the way of life of both members and non-members.

Basically, there's too much flexibility in the system for the criminal if people can easily secede from and ignore local government. For practical reasons, governments have always been based on some amount of territorial continuity- it's harder to communicate and get messages across between separate chunks of land. That's not so much physical ability to communicate, though- the Internet solved that- as it's the ability to understand what's being said from a different frame of reference.

If the low-level governments can be broken up at will, the higher-level ones will not survive.