What Will Push Them Over The Edge?

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Recently, the people of two of Italy’s most prosperous regions voted in a referendum, on whether they wished to have greater autonomy from Rome.

The referendum is non-binding, but that’s not what’s most significant in the results.

What is significant is that over 95% of those who voted in Lombardy did so in favour of greater autonomy. In Veneto, the number in favour of greater autonomy was even higher, at 98%.

Roberto Maroni, president of Lombardy, said, “I now have a commitment… to go to Rome and give concrete actualization to the mandate that millions of Lombards have given me.”

It may appear on the surface that Mister Maroni intends to make an appeal for independence, but this is not what will occur. He’s a politician and won’t invite Rome to jail him for sedition. His goal will instead be to demand that a greater amount of the national income that’s generated by Lombardy and Veneto (about 20% of the total) remains within those regions.

This will not mean that he wants his people to be taxed less; his goal will be to retain a larger portion to be absorbed by the regional governments—to be in his own hands.

So much for the politicians’ agenda. But what does the referendum say about the people of the regions? Well, the extraordinarily high numbers in favour of greater self-determination demonstrate that virtually all the people in the regions have figured out that Rome is bilking them of their earnings and they’re getting pretty cheesed off.

In prosperous times, a population tends not to complain too much about being robbed through taxation. They grumble a bit, but tolerate it. However, in more stringent times, when people are finding it more difficult to make ends meet, they become more resentful of governments that are chronically both overreaching and wasteful.

Since 2008, we’ve been living in such a time, and the longer people go on without a true recovery, the more resentful they’re going to be.

Independence movements have been afoot in many countries in Europe, every state in the USA, and elsewhere on the globe, but, until recently, they’ve been minor issues, attracting primarily fringe support.

Brexit changed all that, as the people of one of the illustrious G7 countries voted to remove themselves from the parasitical EU.

This, of course, inspired the voters of “lesser” countries to consider the possibility of independence more seriously.

Some of these movements have been efforts by largely dependent entities such as Scotland to express the resentment of being the poor step-sister to a more prosperous central government, but others have been the result of the growing resentment that the province or region that’s producing the lion’s share of the national revenue is routinely having it siphoned off by the central government.

It’s predictable that any regional political leader will like the idea of independence, so that he can create his own country and become its president. However, in the present environment, we’re seeing the people of Lombardy, Veneto, Kurdish Iraq, and Catalonia voting overwhelmingly in favour of either full separation, or at least, greater autonomy.

Of course, this can’t be tolerated by the central governments, as it means that they’ll be losing all that revenue and, in many cases, this would collapse their economy.

But, at present, we’re looking at only the thin end of the wedge. There are countless other provinces and regions out there that have a similar desire to secede, and justifiably so.

After all, much of Europe, until the last century or so, was not made up of large countries. It was made up of lots of little tribal areas that sometimes worked collectively. Even the Roman Empire began as a collection of provinces.

Whilst we, today, are accustomed to a world map that’s remained largely the same throughout our lifetimes, there’s actually nothing sacred in the borders that were drawn on maps decades ago, often by people who had never been to those locales (in the case of former colonies and conquered areas). The smaller, tribal areas made more sense and actually worked more in favour of the inhabitants.

But, since World War II, the world has been headed in the direction of über states. The Unites States had already led the way in the late 18th century, but in recent times, the EU was formed and repeatedly expanded. In addition, many organisations have joined groups of countries together (ASEAN, Mercosur, Caricom, etc.).

In each case, the über states were created without the expressed majority interest of the voters. (In EU countries, referenda were sometimes held, but, in no case did a majority of voters vote in favour of joining the EU. The leaders did it in spite of the lack of support.)

Invariably, the über states were created by the political leaders and for the political leaders.

Not surprisingly, in each case in which the people of a province, state, or region have expressed a desire to secede, the central government has forcefully opposed secession. (The Americans fought their civil war, not over slavery, but over secession.)

Today, states such as Texas, which have repeatedly stated both their right and interest in possible secession, have been advised that, if they make such an attempt, they’ll be met with whatever force is required to stop it.

In Catalonia, we’re watching a standoff build between the leaders in Barcelona and Madrid, as each event unfolds.

And Catalonia is a good example of a further reason for a central government to resist the departure of a province: Should Catalonia succeed, there’s the likelihood that the adjoining regions of Valencia and the Balearic Islands might also be inspired to make an exit from Spain, and for the very same reason—because they’re the revenue producers and are having Madrid siphon off their earnings, to be spent on less-productive regions.

Governments have had a long history of claiming, “If we don’t all stick together, we’ll be doomed.” However, historically, the aggressors, more often than not, have been the empires. The smaller a country, the more likely it is to mind its own business.

In addition, the smaller a country, the more closely its leaders are to their people and, correspondingly, the more responsive they are to the people’s needs and goals.

The great majority of the armed conflict that exists today exists either in the larger countries, or, more often, due to the aggression of larger countries.

Brexit has most certainly been the cause of a trend for smaller entities to get up the courage to back away from the parasitical central governments. The hope would be that this trend will expand dramatically.

There can be no doubt that there are those who believe in and are doing their utmost to create a New World Order (they’ve been stating their intent for over a hundred years). Yet, just as we seem to be moving headlong in this direction, a reversal has begun to take place at the same time.

There can be no doubt that the reversal will be resisted strenuously; however, as the voting described above attests, this is a ground-up trend, not a government-generated trend, and, historically, strong ground-up trends have had a healthy track record of success.

*  *  *

Even “successful” independence movements never go smoothly. Extreme economic turmoil is simply built into the game. However, some people always manage to come out the other side much wealthier. We’re sharing how in our Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse. Click here to download your free PDF copy now.

Europe"s Secession Problems Aren"t Going Away

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Earlier this week, The New York Times noted that movements for greater local autonomy appear to be spreading throughout Europe. In some ways, the conflict in Catalonia is just the tip of the iceberg. The Times reports: 

Coming on the heels of the Catalan vote, the Lombardy and Veneto referendums are yet another signal of the homegrown conflicts that persist in many of the European Union’s member states. Separatist movements are also simmering in Britain — where voters in Scotland rejected independence in a 2014 referendum but continue to debate the issue — as well as France, Germany, Belgium and Romania.

Like Catalonia - and unlike Scotland - the Lombardy and Veneto regions of Italy are among the wealthiest regions, and send enormous amounts of tax revenue to Rome. Italy"s southern regions, which are significantly poorer than northern Italy, have benefited from Northern wealth ever since Italians were all forced into a single nation-state in the late nineteenth century. 

This has never been forgotten by Italians from Veneto, many of whom participated in a referendum in 2014 to declare Independence. Naturally, the Italian government in Rome declared the vote invalid. At the time, however, I interviewed one of the organizers Paolo Bernardini about the referendum. (See "Inside Venice"s Secession Movement.") At the time, secessionists liek Bernardini appeared to be pursuing immediate and total independence from Rome, while remaining inside the EU: 

A tiny majority of Veneto people are in favor both of the EU and of the Euro as a currency. So I envisage a little, rich state, playing a major economic and political role in the EU, a stabilizing role. It will interact naturally with other rich and similar states, Bavaria (still part of Germany), Austria, and the Netherlands. It will be a Finland in the Adriatic. 

According to the Times piece, though, supporters of Northern independence have gone back to taking small steps, and realize - probably correctly - that there are numerous steps that must be taken between the status quo and total independence. 

The new effort appears to be focused on conducting local plebescites demanding more local autonomy. This doesn"t conflict with the goal of eventual independence, of course, although it probably is an essential first step. 

Flemish Independence? 

A region taking a gradualist approach is the Flemish-speaking region of northern Belgium, also known as Flanders. The Flanders situation has been noted in a multitude of media outlets looking to find "the next Catalonia." CNBC reports: 

Political groups such as the New Flemish Alliance, a nationalist, conservative group which is dominant in the Belgian parliament, advocate a gradual secession of Flanders from Belgium. Euronews reported that the party even hung a Catalan flag outside its headquarters recently in support of the Spanish separatist region. With elections in 2019, the issue of Flemish independence is not likely to disappear soon.

The Catalonia and Scotland situations have brought secession issues to the fore in the English-language media, but there"s nothing new about Belgium"s problem. The unlikely unions of French-speaking and Flemish-speaking regions date back to 1830 when northern regions of Belgium won independence from the Netherlands. The resulting union known as Belgium has never been a totally comfortable one, as noted in a 2007 Chicago Tribune article, which compared Beligum to an unhappy and tired married couple: 

They stay together mainly out of habit, and also because it would be such a headache to break up the household and divide the communal property.

 

If you know a couple like this, then you will understand the Belgians.

 

Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia are trapped in a loveless marriage called Belgium.

 

In today"s Europe, divorce no longer carries the opprobrium it once did. The Czechoslovakians had a very amicable split in 1993. The Yugoslavs less so. Even Scotland and England are talking about a separation.

 

But in Brussels, which these days feels more the capital of the far-flung European Union than the capital of a medium-size European nation, polite Belgian politicians don"t like the D-word. They wish the whole issue would just go away.

 

It won"t. That much became clear in December when RTBF, the French-language state broadcaster, interrupted its regular programming with an urgent bulletin announcing that Flanders had declared independence.

 

Grainy footage showed King Albert II and Queen Paola heading for the airport to flee the country. There also was video of trams stopped at the new Flemish border, and live interviews with familiar politicians discussing the crisis.

 

Not until half an hour into the broadcast did the message "This is fiction" appear on the screen. Too late. Embassies in Brussels already had scrambled to seek clarification while thousands of worried callers jammed RTBF"s switchboard...

 

Belgian politicians were not amused.

Mind you, this was back in 2007 before it had become well established that the Scots could vote on their own Independence, and before the British voted for Brexit. 

These more recent developments make regionalist movements such as those in Spain, Italy, and Belgium of increasing notability. 

The question remains, however, if nation-states lacking the Anglo-Saxon deference to electoral politics will be as tolerant of election outcomes as the British appear to be. 

The Democracy Problem 

At the core of all these issues remains an unanswered question: If a majority of voters in a region vote for independence or greater autonomy, will the vote be respected by the central government?

After all, European nation-states have for decades been lecturing the rest of the world about the wonderfulness of democracy and how "the will of the people" must prevail. At the national level, it is simply assumed that "the will of the majority" is what grants a state a "right" to rule over the citizenry. 

But if a majority in a specific region votes for a divorce from the central government, is all this talk about democracy and the will of the majority to suddenly be ignored? 

Ludwig von Mises, of course, in his book Liberalism, advocated for the idea that any region, right down to the village level, be allowed to gain independence based on the outcome of a freely held plebiscite. 

In recent years, opponents of independence movements in Italy and Spain have bickered over the way these votes are being conducted, and over the extent to which a majority actually wants indepenence. 

These arguments are good at buying time, but they conveniently ignore the central problem at hand: if Catalonia held a fair-and-square election, and, say, 75 percent of eligible voters opted for independence, would the Spanish government allow independence? What about a similar situation in northern Italy? It"s a yes-or-no question, but it doesn"t seem to be one either the Spanish or Italian government is willing to answer. 

Thus, Europe"s democracy problem persists. Is democracy only allowed when it is no threat to the established status quo for nation-states? Should the central government send in the troops to beat citizens and seize ballots when people vote "the wrong way"? 

This isn"t just a problem for Europe, of course. Most of the "democratic" world, including Europe and the Americas, has a similar problem. 

Old Borders Have Outlived their Usefulness 

As time goes on, though, it"s going to be harder and harder for nation-states to defend the current configuration of their national borders. 

The current model of nation-states is based on the idea that a single metropolis, or a group of them, can control surrounding rural frontier areas for reasons of military strategy and to ensure a food supply for the metropolis. In return, the wealthy metropolis will protect frontier areas from foreign invasions, and provide some semblance of order to far-flung regions lacking the wealth and power of the metropolis. 

This system of nation-states began to take firm shape in the seventeenth century, and was finally solidified in the nineteenth. The world wars of the 20th century showed us the heights to which nation-states can reach, and the extent to which they can seize and control resources.

This old model, however, was initially based on the idea that populations would be largely agricultural and rural, and that personal, cultural, and economic networks would be focused around the nation-states themselves, and the people within them.

As time has gone on, though, urbanization, international trade, and international communications have grown far beyond what the national governments of old could have ever imagined. Capital cities in nation states no longer command the attention and economic focus of other powerful cities within their nation states, and trade with foreign populations has in many cases become more important that trade within one"s own nation-state. Agriculture is no longer a key source of wealth, which makes city-states with only small rural hinterlands increasingly viable. 

At the same time, these newly forced international connections reduce the importance of the old nation-states as "protectors" from the neighboring regions. After all, if trade with the foreigners next door is just as important as trade with one"s own countrymen, it becomes increasingly difficult to see what one"s national government is offering protection from. 

Does northern Italy really need protection from Austrian or Swiss invaders? Does Flanders need protection from the Netherlands? In an age of thorough economic integration, a war between two European states would mostly be a matter of mutually-assured economic destruction. 

Nevertheless, the force of habit is an important factor in political ideology. Many people continue to see their national borders as quasi-sacred, reacting with horror at the idea that their nation-state should be "dismembered." National governments are careful to downplay the fact that the borders of most modern nation-states barely reach back as far as the nineteenth century. Even a look at a map of Europe from 1945 should disabuse us of any notion that national boundaries are anything but temporary. 

In fact, border changes can often be measured in lengths of time similar to those of a single human lifetime. But this doesn"t stop commentators from declaring that such-and-such region or such-and-such state (i.e., California) will never secede or dramatically change its national status.

In politics, claims of "never" should always be treated as laughably naive. 100 years is quite long enough to completely change the map of the world. 

California's Path To Independence Smoother Than Catalonia's, Secessionists Say

California’s burgeoning secessionist movement has been watching Catalonia’s struggle for independence with an eye toward the future. Proponents of transforming California into an independent republic have pointed out that there are many similarities between Catalonia and America’s largest state. For example, both are relatively wealthy.  

However, the circumstances of the two states diverge in one notable respect: The US constitution and California’s state constitution would make it easier for California to secede than Catalonia.

At least, that’s what one leader of California’s largest pro-secessionist group said during an interview with McClatchy.

Catalonia has approached secession in the best way it could, Marin said. If secession is what Californians want, he says their path to independence will be easier thanks to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says any powers not explicitly given to the federal government are retained by the states. The states cannot unilaterally declare independence, but Marin argues that the Constitution provides the federal government and the states a sanctioned path toward that negotiation.

“There are definitely similarities in the fiscal situation – we both give more than we get back,” said Dave Marin, director of research and policy for the California Freedom Coalition. “But there’s more flexibility in the U.S. Constitution for secession than there is in the Spanish one. California has more tools available to it.”

In a shocking display of police brutality, the government of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy forcefully tried to shut down a Catalan independence referendum that took place on Oct. 1 despite being declared illegal by a court in Madrid. Most recently, Catalan Leader Carles Puidgdemont symbolically declared independence before suspending it pending talks with the central government. Meanwhile, Rajoy said Wednesday that Catalonia has eight days to comply with the state’s order to drop its independence bid or Madrid will revoke the state’s autonomy and reassert centralized rule, likely accompanied by a violent crackdown as the rest of Europe backs away.

However, Dave Marin says California can probably find a way to disentangle itself from the US peaceably by employing unconventional tactics.

The first step for Marin’s group is getting an initiative on the 2018 ballot that would repeal a section of the state’s constitution that says California is an “inseparable” part of the US.

“Our state government is very experienced at doing things that undermine the federal government without being unconstitutional,” Marin said, citing California’s sanctuary cities as an example.

The California Freedom Coalition is collecting signatures to get its ballot initiative in front of voters in 2018. It does not definitively say California will declare independence from the United States; it would repeal a provision in the state constitution that says California is “an inseparable part of the United States.” It also directs the governor to negotiate for greater autonomy from the federal government and establishes an advisory commission on California autonomy and independence.

Calls for California’s independence pre-date Donald Trump’s presidency, but his election magnified the movement considerably. Still, most Californians see secession as ridiculous, with only 20% seeing it favorably. Meanwhile, 32% saw it favorably.

“We’re not strictly saying secession right now,” Marin said. “But if that number gets into the high 40s or 50s, it makes sense to consider. And then we have a few more tools to pursue it than Catalonia.”

Given the intense polarization in America’s values and priorities – not to mention California’s open defiance of the federal government, most recently manifested in the “sanctuary state” declaration as well as the state’s legalization of marijuana, which remains illegally at the federal level, the notion that we one day might see an independent California is looking less preposterous.

At the very least, as first the UK – and now Catalonia – have demonstrated, it’d be foolish to write off the possibility.
 

Will Brazil Be The Next Hotspot For Independence Movements?

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

If you’ve read my work over the past several weeks, you’ve probably noticed an increased fascination with secession/independence movements around the world.

I think we’re at the very early stages of this developing trend, which will see nation-states across the world fracture for a variety of reasons.

The historical significance of the political changes we’re about to live through cannot be overstated. As I wrote in last month’s piece, The Future Will Be Decentralized:

To conclude, I recognize that I’m making a huge call here. I think the way human beings organize their affairs will experience the most significant paradigm level shift we’ve seen in the Western world since the end of the European feudal system hundreds of years ago. That’s how significant I think this shift will be. There are two key things that need to happen for this to occur. The first is technological innovation, and that’s already happening. The second is increased human consciousness. As Thoreau noted, in order for us to have greater self-determination we need to be ready for it. Are we ready? I think we’re getting there.

While extremely significant, the Catalan independence movement is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a global drive toward political decentralization. For example, just today I came across another potential secessionist hotspot in an unexpected place, Brazil.

Bloomberg reports:

Inspired by the separatist vote in Catalonia, secessionists in three wealthy southern Brazilian states are redoubling their efforts to break away from the crisis-battered nation.

Residents of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Parana states are being called to vote in an informal plebiscite on Oct. 7 on whether they want independence. Organizers are also urging residents of the three states to sign a legislative proposal for each of their regional assemblies that would call for a formal, binding referendum. The non-profit group “The South is My Country” aims to mobilize a million voters in 900 out of the region’s 1,191 cities.

Cooler, whiter and richer than the rest of Brazil, these southern states have long nursed separatist ambitions. Rio Grande do Sul even briefly claimed independence 180 years ago. Few Brazilians expect the current movement to succeed any time soon, not least because it is prohibited by the Constitution. But the country’s deepest recession on record and a massive corruption scandal have exacerbated the region’s longstanding resentment towards the federal government in Brasilia. With just one year to go until general elections, the rekindling of separatist sentiment in the south is another indicator of the unsettled state of Brazilian politics.

Celso Deucher, the leader of The South is My Country, says the region contributes four times as much tax as it receives and suffers from a below-average level of political representation. He argues that such an unjust situation outweighs any legal concerns.

“Whenever the subject of separatism comes up, they ban it because the federal Constitution does not allow it,” he said. “But the law is not immutable.”

Rio Grande do Sul is currently immersed in a financial crisis and has lost much of its economic clout, according to Fernando Schuler, a professor of political science at Insper University in Sao Paulo.

“There’s a huge cultural detachment between the Tropicalia Brazil and the South,” he said. “The reasons for separation are solid, justifiable, but I don’t think they are viable.” 

There are two aspects of the above story I’d like to address.

First, is that, like Catalonia, the regions thinking about secession from Brazil are relatively wealthy. This is not insignificant and certainly worth thinking about when it comes to wondering what sorts of responsibility these regions should have to the former union should a peaceful breakup go forward. It’s also worth remembering that the leaders of the American revolution were also extremely wealthy. An Independence movement driven by wealthy factions doesn’t necessarily preclude the creation of a superior governing structure.

The second point relates to the fact that Brazil, like Spain, apparently provide no “exit option” for any province or region which decides it no longer wishes to be part of the nation-state. As such, this is by definition an oppressive and involuntary political relationship completely inappropriate to conscious human beings. As I explained in Monday’s post, all political associations should be voluntary and it’s absurd that people are simply born into nation-states that are assumed to be forever entities with no escape latch.

Nation-states aren’t eternal, nor should they be. The problem with nation-states is they refuse to accept this fundamental reality. As such, political dealings with the state get transformed into oppressive centralized relationships, as opposed to voluntary decentralized arrangements. It’s no surprise then that oppressive relationships work out less positively for the average person than voluntary ones where the citizen and local communities are sovereign and empowered.

In response to the Spanish King’s extraordinarily thuggish comments regarding Catalonia yesterday, I composed several tweets relevant to today’s discussion.

If a union no longer works you always need to have a way to leave. Whether marriage or political.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017

Spain"s constitution apparently does not allow a way out.
This is bondage and is actually patently insane.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017

Humans have advanced in many ways in the past half century, but we haven"t really advanced at all when it comes to political systems.

— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) October 3, 2017

Any nation-state constitution that claims there’s no way to separate from the centralized government is an unethical and anti-human constitution. You can’t hide behind unjust laws to defend political bondage. The sooner we recognize this truth and increasingly move toward voluntary political relationships, the better.

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

If The Majority Votes To Secede - What About The Minority?

In recent years, left-wing groups have often been the driving force behind secession movements. This has been the case in Scotland, in Catalonia, and in California. 

In each case, the secession movements have been initiated in part to forward left-wing goals, such as the creation of a larger welfare state or to escape limitations imposed by political interest groups and institutions deemed to be too right-wing. 

Within the American context, the loudest calls for secession right now are coming from California where leftists are eager to assert their independence from the Trump administration in Washington.

Generally speaking, these California secessionists want single-payer health care, an even larger welfare state, confiscation of private firearms, and an ever larger environmental "protection" bureaucracy. That is, they want a European-style welfare state. 

California as Case Study 

This case presents Americans - and especially libertarian-minded Americans - with a question that continues to come up in recent years on secession matters: should they support a left-wing secession movement? 

Is it right or moral to support a secession movement that, in the short- and medium- terms is almost guaranteed to adopt policies that are counter to the cause of freedom and free markets? 

The answer must first and foremost be compared against the reality of forcing political union on a separatist region. That is, the cost of allowing a region to separate must be compared to the cost of keeping it in — i.e., military invasion, occupation, mass arrests, government surveillance, martial law, and worse.

Not surprisingly, we"re forced to conclude the answer is the same whether we"re talking about secession in Scotland, in California, or in Catalonia: the answer is yes.

What About the Minority Interests? 

Often, the immediate retort to this position is to point to those groups in the minority who are left stuck in the seceding territories. 

The argument goes something like this: "Now that you"ve cut California loose, what about those poor conservatives, gun owners, and business owners who will now be negatively impacted by a newly empowered California government? Before, California was at least somewhat restrained by its membership in the United States. Now the California government is even more free to inflict misery on the hapless taxpayers and productive people who are stuck there." 

To this criticism, there are at least two responses.

One: California Independence Means More Freedom for the Rest of the Country 

Those who wish to focus on merely what happens to those who are in California take a parochial and far-too-limited view. Yes, it"s true that business owners, religious Christians, and gun owners in California (to name just three groups) would likely be negatively impacted by California independence. The California government has long illustrated an open hostility to these minority groups. 

The other side of the coin, however, is that California secession would lead to a significant expansion of freedom for the "rump" United States left behind. Freed of the influence of California on American politics, the remainder of the United States would likely move significantly in the direction of more freedom in markets. Federal regulations would likely be scaled back, and presidential candidates would no longer need to cater to interest groups with sizable memberships in California. 

California"s 53-member delegation in Congress (39 of them Democrats) would be gone, and voting patterns in Congress would likely shift in a direction more hospitable to freedom and free markets. 

In other words, the nation would be freed from a great weight tied around its neck. One might even say the situation is analagous to the removal of an infected appendage. It wouldn"t be the first time such a thing had happened. In 1861, when Southern States began seceding from the Union, New Yorker George Templeton Strong welcomed the prospect of being freed from the political influence of the slave drivers down south. He concluded "the self-amputated members were diseased beyond immediate cure, and their virus will infect our system no longer."

But, unlike Strong who might have been induced by conscience to think of the slaves left behind in the seceding territories, we face no similar scruples. Obviously, comparing modern California to a slave state of old is laughably inappropriate, and unlike the slaves, Californians are free to move away. Nor is it the moral obligation of Texans, or Floridians, or Coloradans to protect the Californians from the excesses of their own government.

Thus, when we think of post-secession California subject to the whims of a hard-left government there, we must also think of the 285 million remaining Americans who would benefit from the separation. 

Note also that this situation even has advantages for the taxpayers and business owners in California who wish to escape the California regime. 

Now that the rump United States has been improved by California"s absence, those in California who seek a more business-friendly legal environment can dramatically change their fortunes for the better by moving across the new national boundary to Arizona or Nevada. For these migrants, the net gain achieved by leaving California has grown larger thanks to California"s departure. 

Two: More States are Preferable to Fewer States 

The second response to the objection lies in the fact that secession already brings with it a solution to the problem. That is, the problems caused by one secession are solved by more secession. 

As I"ve explained here, here, and here, a larger number of states is preferable to a smaller number. A larger number of small states provides more practical choices to taxpayers and citizens in choosing a place to live under a governments that more closely match their personal values. 

Thus, in considering the problems of an independent California, we find that the primary problem faced by taxpayers and productive residents in California is that the state is simply too large and contains too diverse a population within its boundaries. 

As noted by numerous commentators over the years — including supporters of the Six Californias initiative — California"s population is quite politically and culturally diverse, although it has been dominated for decades by a hard-left coalition of voters based around the Bay Area. Compared to these voters, Southern California residents appear downright centrist, but one would not know this by looking at statewide politics because Northern California is so adept at throwing its weight around. 

The solution to this problem lies in breaking up California into still smaller pieces. We can see many of these political lines ripe for decentralization in the voting patterns revealed by statewide votes such as those for Propsition 187 and Proposition 8. We can see it in the map of legislative districts. Nor is this just a matter of metropolitan areas versus rural areas. Many suburban areas within the metroplexes of California are quite right-of-center in their own rights, and would surely benefit from further political decentralization. 

Urban core cities ought to be their own self-governing territories, with suburan and rural areas kept separate and self-governing in their own ways. 

The net result of all of this would be to offer a multitude of choices among taxpayers, entrepreneurs, gun owners, and moral traditionalists as to where they might live and enjoy the benefits of self-determination within their own communities. 

But before any of this can happen, we must first establish and extend the moral and legal legitimacy of self-determination through secession and decentralization. Clinging to the status quo of existing regional and national boundaries is reactionary in the extreme. Insisting that no community ought to be allowed self government unless its leaders are hard-core libertarians is impractical, irresponsible, and doomed to failure. 

Nevertheless, when confronted with new attempts at decentralization and secession, even some of those who claim to be for freedom and self-determination cling to ideas of imposing nationalistic control over others. They invent emotion-laden fictional slogans claiming "we are one nation" or "secession is treason" or other sayings designed to justify using the power of the state to impose political unity.  Ultimately, this is an ideology of monopoly and coercion, and tramples the very ideals of freedom that the nationalists claim they hold dear.

Catalan Bid For Independence Seen In Broader Context Of European Disintegration

Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Catalonia’s secession movement has been growing in Spain for decades. The region has its own language and culture. On August 28, two pro-independence parties in Catalonia, the Junts Pel Sí («Together For Yes») coalition and the radical-left Popular Unity Candidacy (CUP), submitted a bill to the regional parliament, which outlines the legal framework for the transition to independence. The two parties currently hold the balance of power in the assembly and, therefore, control the regional government.

The bill is set to be passed before the next referendum on secession will take place on October 1, fulfilling a pledge made by a majority of Catalan MPs. According to opinion polls, a majority of Catalans favor holding a referendum on their status.

While Catalonia has been steadfast in its determination to hold a separation vote, the idea of referendum has been firmly opposed by the central government in Madrid. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative government is attempting to use the courts to prevent it from happening. Spain"s Constitutional Court has previously quashed Catalonia"s resolution to hold a referendum. 

The court and Spanish government have also warned Catalonian officials that they could face legal repercussions and sanctions if they help organize the vote. The war of words between Catalonia and the central government has escalated recently. The recent terrorist attack in Barcelona has failed to bring unity against a common foe. The Catalans are reluctant to comply with Spanish courts’ rulings and the use of force by the central government is hardly an option.

Catalonia, a prosperous region in northeast Spain, which generates a fifth of Spain’s GDP and already has wide sovereignty, managing its own education system and police forces. But it lacks the privilege the Basque Country enjoys, running its own taxes.

Over 70% of Catalans back the referendum, but a “yes” vote is far from being a slam dunk decision. In an opinion poll taken before the recent terrorist attack, 41 percent of respondents said they want Catalonia to be independent, while about 49 percent said they do not. Similar polling information following the attacks is not available. If people say yes, independence will be declared in 48 hours and a new parliamentary election will be held in six months to be followed by a vote on new constitution. Catalonia will form its own military, a supreme court and a central bank.

Catalonia is not the only such place one in Europe. More and more regions in Europe demand independence, greater autonomy and sovereignty. There is increased momentum for regionalism. 

The dream of independence never abandoned the Basque region, which is mainly located in Spain, but extends into France.

In Germany, Bavarians wish for greater autonomy or, even, independence. The calls for secession get louder there as immigrants’ flows hit the region.

Republika Srpska (RS) in Bosnia Herzegovina mulls secession.

Brexit would likely trigger a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Two of Italy"s wealthiest regions, Lombardy and Veneto, have announced plans for referendums in late October aimed at obtaining greater independence.

There is also a secessionist movement in Italy’s South Tyrol. A pro-independence movement is strong in Flanders, the northern region of Belgium. There are also other, more marginal separatist movements in Europe, including Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland (the United Kingdom), Galicia, Aragon (Spain), Silesia (Poland), Frisia (the Netherlands, Germany), Sardinia (Italy), Brittany, Occitania, Alsace, Savoy (France), the Aaland Islands (Finland), the Faroe Islands in Denmark, as well as other small parts of Italy, Spain and Monaco.

The more integrated Europe becomes, the more secessionist movements appear on the continent. And the secessionist movements within national states are not the only thing to divide Europe.

A deeper look shows that the much vaunted European unity is a myth. Europe is getting increasingly divided between political alliances. Southern European countries tend to integration. The Visegrad Group, made up of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the V4), is a bloc within the EU. In its turn, the European Union is on the verge of being divided into a «two speed» or «multi-speed» Europe. The idea of a «Federal Union» has been floated. It is expected that the final decision on the future functioning of the community will be made in December. The coming months are likely to see further turbulence. Germany holds legislative elections in September.

Multi-speed Europe would create rival blocs and perpetuate divisions, with France and Germany setting the rules and others left to catch-up. Countries outside the core will be marginalized being kept outside of the decision-making process. The EU is to become a loose alliance, a patchwork of blocs within blocks.

Actually, Europe has never seen such hard times in its history. The process of disintegration has started and is unstoppable. Today, the continent is divided into clubs, at times overlapping mini-coalitions based on shared geography or interests. «The purpose, even existence, of our Union is being questioned», EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini wrote in the foreword to the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy – the document that emerged a year ago.

The Brexit-started domino effect is continuing the chain reaction across Europe. Crises abound, and all of them boil down to people ultimately prizing their national and regional identities over state or supranational projects. The upcoming changes may make the West as we know it fade away, with new groups of states or national identities emerging. Russia, an island of stability on the tumultuous continent, will see the divisive issues aggravating its relations with the EU simply vanish as time goes by. Moscow will have to deal with something new to take the place of the disintegrating Europe.

You stand a higher chance of being crushed by a vending machine.

Via The Daily Bell

There’s something I’ve always found mesmerizing about watching animals in the wild.

They have the most incredible instincts, honed from countless generations of survival against constant threats.

Animals have a keen sense of danger. They know immediately when something doesn’t feel right, and they act on it without hesitation.

I saw an incredible example of this last year when I was visiting a remote wildlife reservation in Zimbabwe.

It was late in the afternoon on a hot summer day, and my friends and I were ensconced in a hidden observation bunker situated on the edge of a water hole.

The animals all began to arrive, one species at a time, to cool off before nightfall. First the elephants. Then Rhinos. Zebras. Giraffes. Baboons.

It was a playful mood; all the animals seemed to be enjoying the water, when without warning, there was a stillness. The gazelles froze. The zebras’ ears perked.

Something wasn’t right. A smell. A sound. Something.

So they got the hell out of there.

We found out later that a ravenous pack of hyenas was on the prowl nearby, so the animals’ instincts were spot-on.

Deep, deeeep down, human beings have the same highly refined instincts.

Our long-lost ancestors struggled against every imaginable danger. And those lessons are hard-coded in our DNA.

We sense threats. We can feel it when something’s wrong.

The difference between our species and animals in the wild, though, is that we humans have way too many external influences that muck it all up.

Case in point: last week was obviously a tough one for anyone with any sense of humanity.

Acts of terrorism are scary.

And hearing about completely innocent people on a popular pedestrian promenade getting mowed down like bowling pins by some madman is definitely going to cause some discomfort.

But down here in Latin America at least, there was ensuring wall-to-wall news coverage for the next several days in a way I hadn’t seen since 9/11.

It’s all we saw. Terrorism. Terrorism. Terrorism.

This really amps up the fear factor for something that is already difficult to stomach.

So it’s easy to understand why I keep hearing people say things like, “We’re living through the most dangerous times in human history.”

It’s easy to lose perspective. But on the balance we have it pretty good.

13th century Europeans faced a far greater threat with the approaching Mongol hoard.

A century later they faced an even more terrible fate with the onset of the Bubonic Plague, which ultimately wiped out around 30% of Europe’s population.

Even in more recent times, the threat of nuclear annihilation between East and West posed a constant threat.

Yes, acts of terrorism are appalling. But taken in historical and mathematical context the danger is actually quite low.

The Cato Institute published some data recently showing that the chances of dying in a terror attack are around 1 in 3 million.

Statistically speaking, you have a better chance of being crushed to death by a vending machine.

But we don’t demand that our governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars that taxpayers cannot possibly afford in order to protect us from vending machines.

That’s because deep down we sense that vending machines don’t truly pose a threat.

But with terrorism our senses are heavily manipulated until we believe that the threat is far greater than what the statistics show.

The real irony is that the manipulation works both ways.

Just as we are manipulated into being terrified of certain risks that pose no real statistical threat, we are manipulated into ignoring other risks that are far more likely.

I would raise financial markets as an obvious example.

The stock market in the United States is at an all-time high, with valuation metrics that have rarely been higher in more than 100 years of data.

Bond markets around the world have literally never been more expensive… EVER.

In order to return to levels that are more in-line with long-term historical averages, stock and bond markets would both have to suffer steep losses.

But instead of encouraging investors to independently assess these financial risks, mainstream media often dismisses such assertions as pessimistic bugaboo.

Or another obvious long-term risk– that Social Security is going to run out of money.

I write about this one frequently. The Social Security Trustees, including the Treasury Secretary of the United States, state very clearly in their annual report that Social Security’s major trust funds “will be depleted in 2034.”

Yet despite the totally predictable, unavoidable, widespread consequences to Americans’ primary source of retirement income, the public is manipulated into ignoring this threat as well.

Instead of the truth, we continue to hear the same tired mantra– “Social Security is just fine,” despite every shred of objective evidence to the contrary.

We’re also told to believe ridiculous axioms like “the US government’s debt doesn’t matter,” even though they have $20+ trillion of it and spend like drunken sailors.

But no. The experts tell us that this is not a risk worth concerning ourselves with. Angry brown people want to kill us. Focus on that instead.

Human beings have a 1 in 3,000,000 chance of suffering from a terror attack.

Yet there is currently a 100% chance that Social Security runs out of money in 2034.

Only one of these manages to find its way into the news.

Not to mention, if properly informed, people can actually DO SOMETHING about the latter. There’s plenty of time for intelligent people to prepare.

3 Things To Remember On Independence Day

It"s difficult to say what most Americans commemorate or celebrate on Independence Day nowadays. Many appear to focus on some vague notion of "America." Others even take to jingoism equating the United States government with the very notion of "freedom." 

Lost in all of this is the fact that the Declaration of Independence - the document we"re supposed to remember today - is a document that promotes secession, rebellion, and what the British at the time regarded as treason. 

On the other hand, those who do recall the radical nature of the Declaration often tend to romanticize the American Revolution in a way that is neither instructive nor helpful today. 

So, what should we remember about Independence Day, and what can it teach us? For starters, here are three things about the history and context of this holiday that should continue to inform us today and into the future. 

One: If You Can"t Secede, You"re Not Really Free

The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence lays it out. Sometimes, "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another..." 

The document then goes on to list in detail why 1776"s specific act of secession was justified and necessary for preserving the rights of the colonists. 

By the 19th century, this philosophy of self-determination would become a foundational element of the ideology now known internationally as liberalism — or "classical liberalism" in the United States. 

Not surprisingly, we find this idea in the later writings of liberals such as Ludwig von Mises who, writing in Vienna in 1927, concluded:

It must always be possible to shift the boundaries of the state if the will of the inhabitants of an area to attach themselves to a state other than the one to which they presently belong has made itself clearly known...

[W]henever the inhabitants of a particular territory ... make it known ... that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time ... their wishes are to be respected and complied with.

Mises, like Jefferson, understood that without this right of self-determination, there is no freedom.

Nevertheless, modern opponents of self-determination and secession will claim that secession cannot be tolerated because it is not "legal."

This is scarcely relevant. After all, the colonial uprising against the King was not "legal," and it hardly matters whether political victors consider any breakaway secession movements legal. Times and societies change, and nothing is forever or written in stone. 

For Mises, secession must be tolerated for pragmatic reasons. It is "the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars." But For Jefferson, as for his fellow secessionists, it was a moral imperative, whether "treasonous" or not. 

Two: Independence Day Is Not a Military Holiday 

For obvious reasons, government institutions have little motivation to emphasize the Declaration of Independence or the philosophy it represents. This would amount to the government undermining itself. Consequently, many have attempted to turn the Fourth of July into a holiday that embraces vague notions of celebrating "America." 

These ahistorical interpretations notwithstanding, Independence Day recalls resistance and a withdrawal of fealty to a hostile political power. We should not twist it into a celebration of our current rulers in Washington, the federal government, or the troops that work for and represent the federal government. 

It should be a celebration against government and a reminder that Americans can once again walk away from tyranny, even if force of arms is required. 

This does not defame or insult the American troops, but rather reminds us that we are a civilian nation and the government (and its troops) is supposed to be our servant rather than our master. Slavish displays of patriotism and loyalty to the state are inimical to the real meaning of the holiday.

Three: Armed Revolt Is a Serious and Rare Event 

Among those who do wish to commemorate the true resistance offered by the revolutionaries, there is a different error: thinking that armed resistance is always right around the corner. 

In some corners of America, it"s become almost commonplace to hear claims that surely the Second American Revolution will come with just a few more outrages committed against life, liberty, or property. All it will take is a few more no-knock raids committed against peaceful families sleeping in their beds. Or perhaps the government need only seize a few more guns before the American people "wake up." Or perhaps once someone reveals the extent to which the US government spies on us all — as Edward Snowden has already done — then Americans will simply refuse to tolerate it any more.

In truth, armed resistance tends to only materialize in the midst of poverty or foreign invasion. Not surprisingly, over the past century, despite decades of immense growth in government power, rising taxes, and stifling government regulations, virtually no Americans have been taking up arms against the American state.

Some of this may stem from admirable prudence. After all, the American Revolution was an exceptionally bloody conflict, and such conflicts should not be started lightly. As noted by the Library of Congress, "[t]he Revolution ... was, after the Civil War, the costliest conflict in American history in terms of the proportion of the population killed in service. It was three times more lethal than World War II." The poverty, property destruction, and loss of life was immense given the tiny size of the American population at the time. 

Most Americans are unaware of these specifics, but most people instinctively know that armed conflict can bring with it a very high price. 

This doesn"t mean armed resistance is impossible, of course. It"s simply worth recognizing that so long as Americans enjoy some of the world"s highest standards of living few will be motivated to take up arms.

Ideas Always Matter 

It is also helpful to remember that armed conflict can be especially disastrous when motivated by the wrong ideas and the wrong ideologies. Who can say with confidence that if the US government were wiped away today, that it would not be replaced with something even worse? Under such circumstances, we must never abandon the important work of laying the foundations first for a revolution in ideas. Without a true respect for the freedoms outlined in the Declaration of Independence, political resistance is of little value. Moreover, in a society where true freedom is valued — and where a majority embraces liberal ideals — violence will prove to be totally unnecessary. And this would be the best outcome of all. 

Mapping Europe's Secessionist Movements

Despite the elites" desperate hope that recent "losses" in Holland France "prove" the anti-establishment movement is fading (although they all saw soaring popularity), with Europeans ready to protest, there are still numerous regions urging secession...

There have been 486 military conlicts in Europe in the last 2000 years and while the last decade or two has been "peaceful", we suspect that will not last.

As BofAML"s Transforming World Atlas details, many areas in Europe have strong secessionist movements (e.g. Scotland, Catalonia, Basque, Flanders, Veneto) or have political parties agitating for greater ruling autonomy.

European political union remains elusive, so does fiscal union, and monetary union is tarred by the fact that nine EU countries - soon to be eight - (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and The UK) do not use the Euro.

FATCA Needs To Go, But Unfortunately, The FATCA "Refugees" Are Never Coming Back

Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

GotNews posted an article yesterday about a “refugee problem” America has, referring to approximately 20,000 Americans who have renounced their citizenship under Obama’s leadership, and suggesting America “repatriate” said citizens:

America has a refugee problem. Not the Syrian refugees. No, not the Afghan ones. No, not even the Cuban refugees. I’m talking about the born-and-raised American citizens who got fed up, gave up their U.S. citizenship, and escaped Obama’s America while they still could.

Yes, that’s right: nearly 20,000 American citizens left Obama’s America and forfeited their American citizenship while Obama was President.

Nearly 20,000 U.S. citizens voluntarily gave up their rights to vote, run for office, and the freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, while Obama was in office.

We shouldn’t be allowing anyone from the violent and dangerous Middle East, including so-called “refugees”, into the United States right now. The only refugees who should be entering the United States are the American refugees who fled Obama’s America. Not only do we have that duty to our fellow Americans, but they pose no threat to us like Middle Eastern “refugees” do.

What was missing from the article?  Discussion of the Obama-sponsored law that caused many citizens (mostly expats) to renounce their citizenship: FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).

FATCA has been beaten to death by other sources, but surprisingly, very few people are aware of what it does.  The whole purpose of the law was to “crack down” on overseas tax evasion.  Simon Black of Sovereign Man did an excellent job of summarizing the net effect:

Deep within its bowels fell the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA for short. It was a sort of ‘law within a law’, and one of the dumbest in US history.

FATCA effectively commanded every single bank on the planet to enter into an information-sharing agreement with the IRS.

(Well, not so much ‘information sharing’. More like ‘information giving’. Because the US government doesn’t share anything with anyone.)

It all started based on a phony assumption that millions of Americans were hiding trillions of dollars in secret offshore accounts. And given how broke the US government is, they wanted every penny they were entitled to.

So the plan was to turn every bank in the world into a global spy network.

Any bank that didn’t comply was threatened with a crippling 30% withholding tax on every dollar that went in, out, and through the Land of the Free.

In a nutshell, if you are an American expat living abroad, you just had to jump through thousands of hurdles to prove to the IRS that you aren’t evading any taxes, report all this information correctly, and within a confusing legal framework that leaves even the best accountants stumped, often triggering audits for “violation” of FATCA, even if it was not violated at all.

Unsurprisingly, since the law was enacted, the amount of expatriates who renounce their citizenship has risen exponentially:

FATCA forces any American opening a bank account overseas to be in compliance with the law, by having the IRS punish foreign nations that do not comply.  Because of FATCA, the majority of foreign banks quickly turned to outright refusal of US clients.  Good luck finding one that doesn’t charge a ridiculous litany of fees.

Obviously, you need to live abroad to renounce your citizenship.  But who is doing the renouncing?  For the most part, permanent expats who have no intention of ever moving back.  Eduardo Saverin, the Facebook co-founder whose story was on full display in the movie The Social Network, is the biggest name of the group.  However, billionaires like Saverin aren’t most people.  A more pertinent real-world example is Rachel Heller:

This state of affairs comes about because the US bases its taxation system on citizenship, unlike the rest of the world, where taxation is residence-based. In other words, while I live in the Netherlands, pay taxes in the Netherlands, and receive services in return for my taxes from the Netherlands, I was also expected to pay in the US, despite the fact that I received no services for my tax dollars.

 

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed in 2010 and in effect since 2014, was intended to catch “tax cheats”: billionaires living in the US who send their money abroad to hide it from the IRS. The problem is that people like me, who have moved abroad for jobs or for love, are persecuted as a consequence of that effort.

 

This does not mean that I was trying to avoid paying my “fair share,” the misleading phrase often used by politicians and repeated by the press. Because of a treaty between the US and the Netherlands (and many other countries), I only had to pay US taxes if my income was higher than about $100,000, which, as a teacher, it will never be. Instead, I pay where I live. I am in the 42 percent tax bracket here in the Netherlands, and my husband’s income puts him in the 52 percent bracket. That is much higher than it would be in the US, so I cannot be accused of avoiding taxes. If I wanted to do that, the Netherlands would be the last place I would live.

 

Nevertheless, I had to fill out US tax forms every year, plus extra forms to claim my foreign tax exemption, all to prove that I in fact do not owe any US taxes.

 

I repeat: I love the US. But I had to fill out lengthy forms (or rather, I spent almost a thousand euros a year to pay an accountant to do them for me), exposing my and my husband’s accounts to US government scrutiny, and I risked losing the ability to do the sort of banking that any middle-class American would normally take for granted.

Yes, it is true, the majority of US expats are willing to give up their citizenship.  It’s not because they aren’t American.  It’s because by not living in America, FATCA has effectively rendered them second-class citizens. 

The USA is one of only two countries in the world that has this system of taxation.  The other is Eritrea, which levies a simple 2% flat tax on its citizens who live abroad.  And still, the media, and even the UN have weighed on Eritrea’s simple regime, calling it “authoritarian”:

Nearly every country in the world bases its tax system on residency rather than citizenship. If you’re an Italian citizen, and you leave Italy to live and work in Dubai, you don’t have to pay taxes on the income you earn abroad to the Italian government.

But Eritrea levies a 2% flat tax on its citizens who live abroad. If you’re an Eritrean citizen, you have to pay taxes to the Eritrean government, no matter where you live and work.

The media has condemned this as “extortion” and a “repressive” measure by an “authoritarian” government.

The UN has even weighed in. In Resolution 2023, the UN Security Council condemned Eritrea for “using extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals.”

FATCA is far more onerous, costly, and authoritarian than anything Eritrea does.  But don’t hold your breath expecting the UN to condemn what the USA is doing to its own citizens.

Rachel Heller went into detail on how difficult the renunciation process is in her above linked article, but even after months and months of interviews, the USA piles on a $2,350 “renunciation fee” and an exit tax on your net worth, in addition to a “doxxing” of your name and personal details in a Federal register, done to “name and shame” you for renouncing your citizenship.

It is sad that Americans have been forced to renounce their citizenship to comply with the onerous restrictions on their rights as a result of the Obama administration’s FATCA law.  But they didn’t give up their citizenship because they all of a sudden became un-American; no, they did it because of a law that has turned living and/or working abroad into an expensive, onerous, bureaucratic nightmare for the ordinary American citizen.  Repealing FATCA should be almost as high on Trump’s list as repealing Obamacare, but unfortunately for the citizens living abroad, a repeal of this law is not likely anytime soon, as Trump seems quite preoccupied with other affairs at the moment.

What is even more sad, however, is that these citizens who have renounced will not be coming back, or re-applying for citizenship anytime soon.  Most were already living abroad permanently, and had no interest in ever moving back.  Because of FATCA and the IRS, and nothing else, they will no longer enjoy the protections of afforded to them when they were born.  FATCA and its ridiculous system has ensnared law-abiding American expats into a constant battle with the IRS, all over the day-to-day activities all citizens engage in.

Regrettably, no new legislation can change that fact, undo all of the damage FATCA has already caused, or magically bring back the citizenship rights of those who have chosen to give it up, solely to avoid FATCA’s unjust burden.