By Peter R. Quinones, Substack
In episode #511 of my podcast, Jeff Deist states that with the control of the levers of power firmly in the hands of Left AND Right Progressives, “separation” is the only solution. I interpret his use of the term separation as radical decentralization and even secession. If you are looking for a solution to growing tyranny, and especially the rapidly expanding centralized power of the medical technocratic State, this is the only solution other than dropping off the grid completely.
The objections you hear from the mainstream are typical whether they’re from the Left or Right. The Left has no rational response other than, “you just want to own slaves,” or, “we fought a war to settle this you bigot!” Reminding them that they didn’t fight a war and Twitter isn’t Gettysburg is always fun. And the Right? It all comes down to tradition. “There’s 50 stars on that flag for a reason,” or, “you’re disrespecting the soldiers who died for our freedoms.” Asking them what they celebrate every 4th of July is just hilarious at this point.
That there are so many people who claim to be liberty-minded who object to decentralization and secession should be surprising, but it isn’t. They’ve been taught to seek “perfection” instead of “acceptable.” What do I mean by this? I can tell you from my own experience that it is much easier to keep talking about the fantasy of “ancapistan” than a thousand Lichtensteins. Why? Because talking about how you get to a thousand Lichtensteins takes a lot more effort and brain-power than talking about something you’ll never see. Theory is always easier than praxis. Digesting Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s classic, “What Must Be Done,” and starting to implement it is much harder work than reading books on what a “perfect” libertarian society would look like. I’ve done both and have been guilty of the latter.
If we read the culture properly, we should realize that promoting separation to people who believe half the country wants them enslaved to their values is more strategic than telling them about the non-aggression principle and how this will lead them to a free-market society they may not desire. The kind of people I want to reach out to say things like, “look, I just want to be left alone and live my life in peace.” They may not be looking for private security or a society based off mutual aid. And that’s fine. I want to concentrate on explaining to them how they achieve their goals of “being left alone” and how the leviathan of the federal State prevents that. Don’t throw away the “acceptable” because you’ve been convinced you need “perfection.”