Splitting California Into 3 States Just Reached An Important Milestone

An initiative to split the state of California into three different states has gathered enough support via signatures to qualify as a ballot measure in November.  This is one important milestone for those who want to break away from the harsh Communist policies of much of the Golden State.

Venture capitalist Tim Draper said backers of what he has dubbed “CAL 3” would submit petitions with more than 600,000 signatures to election officials next week. The initiative needs signatures from 365,880 registered voters – five percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2014 election – to qualify for the ballot. And according to 10 News, Draper said there’s a lot of support for this.

Breaking the state into three separate states would still require congressional approval. But Draper is hopeful. “This is an unprecedented show of support on behalf of every corner of California to create three state governments that emphasize representation, responsiveness, reliability, and regional identity,” Draper said.

One proposed state would be called California or a name to be chosen by its residents after a split. It would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties. The second state, Southern California or a name to be chosen by its residents, would consist of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera and Mono counties.    The remaining 40 counties would be part of the state of Northern California or a name chosen by its residents.  Northern California and parts of southern Oregon have often referred to some of the areas as the State of Jefferson – the “51st state” named after the third president of The United States. 

But without congressional approval, no state will be allowed to succeed and gain sovereignty. That hasn’t stopped Draper, however. He said he conceived the initiative out of a belief that “the citizens of the whole state would be better served by three smaller state governments while preserving the historical boundaries of the various counties, cities, and towns.”  And many in the more rural northern counties of California have been disenfranchised for quite some time now.  Their votes are overwhelmingly irrelevant due to the large Communist populations in the big cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Steven Maviglio, a longtime Democratic Party political consultant who was a co-chair of the effort to oppose Draper’s 2014 initiative to split California into six states, told City News Service, “Splitting California into three and creating three new governments does nothing to solve our state’s challenges other than tripling them.” What Maviglio is saying, is that by splitting California, the state will have to split their 55 electoral votes and it’s highly likely half would go to a Republican president, rather than a Democrat in upcoming presidential elections.  For that reason alone, don’t look for the California government to willingly allow this split regardless of the votes.

Politicians care only about power and most people give it to them. Breaking up the state will have some big political losers.  Never be under the assumption that the rich will allow you to vote away their money or that a politician will allow you to vote away their power.

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.

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.