The Right To Secede

In recent years, many who ID as "liberty lovers" have been making much speak of the idea of secession.  The notion, while in itself valid, has to my knowledge not been discussed as to the particulars insofar as what it means in practice.  What does it mean to "secede"?  As always, the dictionary should be our first friend in establishing the semantic baseline from which we shall operate.

Worcester's Dictionary of 1840:

SECEDE: n. To withdraw from union of fellowship in society, or in any matter or business; to separate oneself; to retire.

Webster's of 1828:

SECE'DE, verb intransitive [L. secedo; se, from, and cedo, to move. Se is an inseparable preposition or prefix in Latin, but denoting departure or separation.]

To withdraw from fellowship, communion or association; to separate ones's self; as, certain ministers seceded from the church of Scotland about the year 1733.

Oxford Etymological Dictionary:

secede (v.)
1702, "to leave one's companions," from Latin secedere "go away, withdraw, separate; rebel, revolt," from se- "apart" + cedere "to go"). Sense of "to withdraw from a political or religious alliance of union" is recorded from 1755, originally especially in reference to the Church of Scotland. Related: Seceded; seceding; seceder.

Withdrawal is the essences of secession.  The freedom to withdraw remains a central and basic human right; it is one of the marks of a Freeman.  This speaks to the right to freedom of association, as recognized, honored, and protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution.

As Freemen, we are each entitled to reserve our individual right to associate as we see fit.  We are free to withdraw from society as we may choose, for whatever reason whatsoever, or for no reason at all.  No man, regardless of his claim of purport, holds the authority to force upon another associations against the other's will.

Secession is not only the right of a population, though it is that also; it is most truly the right of the individual to associate as he will, which implies association in all its forms.  This includes his choice to secede from government and its interferences in his life, regardless of the manner, degree, or justifications given them.

Those who presume to lord over the rest have nothing valid upon which to hang their assertions in the matter of their claims to authority, regardless of the premise, which perforce is always false precisely because such claims are always lies.  The bottom line is this: no man holds authority over another.  Unless the other has committed a bona fide crime, which excludes all the synthetic crimes dreamt up from the thin air by men on the basis of their corrupted beliefs and interests, one has no right to interfere in the choices of another.  Authority, as commonly exercised by "government", is nothing better than the threat of the sword against all who fail to comply with the will of human caprice masquerading as valid command.

Bottom line: the right to secede is an inherent, individual right and not one of an exclusively collective nature.  Indeed, the collective right only exists to the extent of that of each individual in the group in question.  As we all know, or ought to know, rights are not additive.  In a group of three individuals, the concurring opinions of two in accord with their rights to choose and act do not dominate to countervail the right of the third to choose for himself on the issue in question.

It is my hope that people will come to the better understanding of secession, embrace it, and work toward making it the rule, rather than the high-risk exception it is today.

Thanks once again, be well, and as always, please accept my best wishes.