If states secede why not parts of a state? Why not cities? Why not neighborhoods. You're pretty much advocating the end of civilization and the return to tribal groupings. But tribal warfare was actually much more violent and unstable than the nation state.
That's a reductio ad absurdum. There are reasonable levels of division well above tribal levels. Singapore is basically a city state, and I don't notice a collapse of civilization there.
Territories with strong social identity would maintain political union, territories with weak social identity and severe political disagreements would split. As much as is possible, no one is ruled by people they hate.
I don't understand the downvoting of this comment. What is being described is effectively tribalism.
Tribalism worked well for humans for roughly 350,000 years. Then we idiots come along and think that we've got a better way that is already showing its weaknesses and strain after just a couple of thousand years. Really? Maybe, just maybe our ancestors were on to something and there's something we can learn from them. No that couldn't possibly be it.
Tribalism is red in tooth and claw, it's the culture of might makes right. Technology stops tribalism being a viable or desirable culture today. Tribalism scaled up as technology necessarily permits and forces it be scaled up is fascism.
Those are some pretty extreme claims that have no basis in fact. I tend to look at the other way around: tribalism becomes viable (again) because of technology.
Because of course, today's society is completely free of violence now that we've eliminated tribalism?
I have noticed that nothing that I say on HN, except for saying that the scientific evidence is that intelligence is mostly genetic and heritable, gets more downvotes more quickly than discussing secession.
I think the topic has been successfully in the mind of college educated people, so any mention of it immediately brings to mind both slavery and, somewhat amusingly, fascism.
It is too bad. As I said above, I see it as the best way to avoid violence.
Because they won't want to. Breaking down at that granular level would be too inconvenient to be worth it, even before considering the issues you laid out yourself.
If we all believe that government requires consent of the governed, why structurally require violence to achieve that state? That's the status quo you're defending.
Meta: this is how a real-life slippery slope argument and response should go. It's not a fallacy, it's just not always applicable, just like every other concept
