My guess is that the constituents for pan-secession will include conservatives who do not feel they can ever win under the current system but do not want to go down the road of overt authoritarianism, liberals and leftists who have a “better off without them” attitude toward conservatives, libertarians and others who simply want less government or more localized government, centrists and others who simply want to keep the peace, and those who feel their particular tribes/sects/causes are going to be better served in the process (which could include a vast range of otherwise contradictory groups). But an even bigger question is what form pan-secession will actually assume?
The meme below has been in circulation recently. The main problem I see with this model is that the conflict tends to be local as much as regional. The scenario depicted in the image would just be 8 versions of what we have now.
A critical commentator writes:
Several smaller federations (or even confederations) do not change the basic dynamic much. Much more locally-focused autonomy is needed – at least down to the county level – ultimately to even more granular size. Further, neither a formal dissolution of the USA federation or of any of its subdivisions (provincial level/ “states”) is actually required or especially desirable. Better a strong de facto devolution of practical power down to the local (level) while nominal higher groupings retain their ceremonial standing.
Models for this exist historically. One is the slow breakdown of authority of the Holy Roman Empire. Another is the devolution of the British Empire into the Commonwealth (with further levels of autonomy still being pursued [e.g. Scotland’s potential breakaway] ). Another structure reform would be a system of networking for fostering trade relationships and extradition between the local entities, which did not require members of a given network to be geographically contiguous. Additionally, multiple citizenships in a variety of locations should be possible for individuals without residency requirements. None of these improvements need to be the result of violent revolution. All can be achieved via relatively gradual evolution.
Yes, in the past I’ve been asked why I promote the seemingly bizarre idea of dividing societies up into ideology-specific/culture-specific/issue-specific free cities, intentional communities, trade zones, eco-villages, or micronations, and the answer is because this is the only way a super-diverse society can potentially achieve peace without tyranny. I have cited the Holy Roman Empire as a model from the past as well. Also, the Greek cities, the Ottoman millet system, traditional Chinese village communities, Gandhi’s satyagraha philosophy, contemporary microstates like Lichtenstein, early utopian communities, the religious colonies in early America, federated tribal systems like in Native North America, Polynesia, and West Africa, medieval leagues, etc.
