"A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite." - Ludwig von Mises
The 2014 referendum on Scottish independence happens this Thursday. If the Scots leave the UK, they will take with them 90% of the oil reserves! The UK's economic authorities (including former BoC Governor Mark Carney) have nothing but contempt for a currency union with the independent country. But why? The UK account deficit is awful. If the Yes vote wins and 90% of the oil goes to an independent Scotland, it may be the straw that breaks the Euro's back.
What are the odds Scotland will trade 90% of its oil with the UK exclusively? Pretty slim.
And like in 2008, the authorities may play up the meme that this economic crisis can't be contained. The whole world may slip back into the recession we never got out of thanks to Scotland's independence. Just as 2008's crash was blamed on the "free market", a 2014 crash following the referendum may be blamed on secession, smaller states and, well... all-around liberty.
That's been the plan, right? Attack free markets, attack free people, attack free ideas. A majority of people are apathetic. The ideas of liberty need to be squashed before they latch onto the collective psyche. The powers-that-be had thought they hammered the last nail-in-the-coffin. But the internet brought it back.
Scottish independence could set off a domino effect through Europe and possibly the world. Europe has a history of secessionist, radical and nationalist movements. Especially as the Euro-controlled economy continues to crash and as state-regulated immigration continues to cause resentment and racial tensions.
As "Tyler Durden" from Zero Hedge writes, "Good luck, Scotland. The fate of a century of globalization and wealth-transfer efforts suddenly lies on your shoulders."
Now I can't speak for Dan, Terry, Molly or any others involved at PFT but I wish Scotland the best of luck as well. Seven or eight generations ago my family came from Scotland, so it's place I'd like to go visit. However, I'd like to visit a free Scotland. I don't consider the United Kingdom to be particularly free.
And I'd like to live in a free Canada as well. That's why I support Quebec separation. But why stop at Quebec? Why can't every province separate into its country? Why can't First Nations (who claim to be sovereign) actually declare their sovereignty and take ownership of those resources the Reserves sit on?
We should be looking up to the Scots.
This is a map I often link to. But this map was once accurate. And this one focuses on the BC coast. British Columbia is a province where most of the land is considered "Crown Land" despite the First Nations never giving up their sovereignty. Not even in baloney treaties. (It's worth pointing out that Treaties tend to screw over everyone who isn't the ruling class, not just First Nations. Just look at the recent Treaty signed with the Chinese).
Now some people, even those that are awake, are flabbergasted at this idea. Not just at the First Nations & Quebec separating from Canada, but the entire nation falling apart. The end of Confederation, essentially.
Well, why not? The "Canadian Identity" of peacekeeping abroad, universal health-care, multiculturalism, CBC, equality, public education, etc. are all values controlled by the powers-that-be. Confederation itself was a scheme hatched by colonial politicians looking to expand the federal state and supported by the money-interests in London. In fact, without the support of a small but influential group of British investors, Confederation wouldn't have happened in 1867, if it all.
We don't "peace-keep" with the UN (surprise! surprise!). We keep the world safe for democracy by ensuring crony-capitalists have their investments protected.
We don't have a health-care system in this country. We have a sick-care system that operates on the same basic level as the Soviet Economy. No free exchange, no entrepreneurship, no supply and demand. Just state coercion.
We don't have true multiculturalism. If we had that, we'd have a polycentric legal system. And since when did the government's push for multiculturalism become something to support? As Hoppe writes, "A good measure of uninvited foreigners and government imposed multiculturalism is calculated to further weaken and ultimately destroy national, regional, and communal identities and thus promote the goal of a One World Order, led by the U.S., and a new "universal man.”"
We have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to save us from "American cultural influence." But with other private entities doing just fine (CTV, Global, even PFT is coming along), the CBC is irrelevant. Especially in the age of the internet. Culture knows no borders. A national culture is an empty promise made by politicians looking to increase their wealth and power. A national culture indoctrinates people into thinking that anyone outside the 3x5 card of approved opinion is "anti-Canadian." A national culture is pretty fascist.
We don't have equality, nor should that be something to strive for. People are born with different skills and varying levels of intelligence. Some people strive for hands-on experience, others find knowledge through contemplation. Some people are happy with mediocrity. Regardless, an inequality of wealth is a fundamental aspect of human action. In a free market anybody can become rich. This is not something we should try to eliminate. Inequality under law is of course something to eliminate, but we cannot get it under government imposed law and order. Again, as Hoppe has described, the only real equality under law comes from a polycentric order.
We have "public education" but this a fancy word for state indoctrination. It may not have started out that way. "Common schools" were local and decentralized throughout most of Canada's history. They were paid for by the property taxes of the local residents. In the 20th century, especially during the Great Depression, schools and school districts were consolidated. The Federal Government took more of an active role in what is constitutionally a provincial issue. The result is a system that is lingering toward centralization and bankruptcy.
None of these "Canadian values" are something to be proud of. If anything, they highlight how statist and unfree Canada really is. Despite our (relative) freedom of speech, our property rights are constantly trampled on and our economic freedoms are almost nonexistent. I can't buy, sell, save or invest without having Ottawa involved.
Is this the vision our founders had? Yes. The politicians of the 1860s that were for liberty and decentralization were never invited to the Quebec Conferences. Goldwin Smith, a British historian and Canadian journalist had this to say of Canadian Confederation:
"They [the framers] intend to create not a federation but a kingdom." Smith denounced the Quebec Resolutions as a reactionary document out of step with the liberal spirit of the New World. He recognized that the economic philosophy of the framers were consistent with the ideas of Alexander Hamilton. He emphasized the importance of "voluntary action and spontaneous action" and denounced the proposed Senate as "an attempt on the part of the framers to create a hereditary aristocracy, as far as circumstances permit."
According to Smith, Canada was being built on the "traces of feudalism." The Toronto Globe was classical-liberal paper founded by George Brown. Although ultimately a Confederate, he sympathized with the opposition; his paper publish that, "the more carefully we consider the effect of the changes made on the Quebec scheme by the gentlemen now in London, the more deeply we regret" the compromise for more federal control at the expense of the provinces. The paper predicated that the new Canadian nation would result in "increasing budgets, annual deficits, and fresh taxation." All of which seem to have come true.
It's time Canadians reclaim their history and read men such as Goldwin Smith, J.B.E. Dorion, Luther Holton, John Sandfield Macdonald or look into the archives of the Toronto Globe. Consolidating power in Ottawa was a step in the wrong direction. It might have kept the Americans out of the West and satisfied British investors such as Thomas Baring. But what cost?
Secession is not something to be afraid of. Separation is not a dirty word. If you're reacting badly to the idea of breaking up Canada, perhaps it's time to examine why this idea strikes such an emotional cord. What is a country other than what Benedict Anderson calls a "imagined community"?
So good luck to Scotland! I hope they win. And I hope this is the start of a series of secessions that will see the world move closer and closer to individual sovereignty in a free market. It's just one of the many ways we can overturn the global enslavement the European dynasties have planned for us. It's time to reclaim the spirit of liberty that once defined the New World. Let's make the term “New World Order” mean something completely different.