“Alu, secession is not necessary. We all just need to chill out and get along with our neighbors. We have so much more in common than we realize. We are one country! We are all Americans! Our values and goals are the same, we just differ on some tiny inconsequential issues.”

I’ve heard this more times than I can count. 

Those who know me know that in nearly every arena, I can get along extremely well with pretty much any kind of person. I love meeting and getting to know people of all races, religions, orientations, and political ideologies. And I don’t just chat with them at parties. I have formed deep relationships with many people who share little in common with me other than basic decency, intelligence, and curiosity. So, why am I the biggest advocate for secession in the united states? Why am I so certain that the people within the union have irreconcilable differences and that dissolving the union is the only practical solution that could help us avert a civil war?

Our experiences, logic, and scientific surveys all tell us the same thing: we all disagree on the most fundamental beliefs that guide our lives. The disagreements between progressives, conservatives, and libertarians are not like the bickering between Patriots and Bills fans. Realistically, Bills fans CAN live next door to Patriots fans. And they can get along quite well. Or they can just ignore each other. But this isn’t football. This is real life. And I mean it. 

Pro-life individuals generally believe that babies are humans who deserve rights and cannot be killed simply because they have not yet exited the uterus and taken a breath. To around 100 million individuals living in the union, killing a pre-born baby is no different from killing a child. A very large portion of these people cannot bear the thought of their next-door neighbors brutally murdering their baby at 38 weeks of gestation. They may pray about it, they may confront their neighbor, and they may even believe they are justified in using force to stop a murder from occurring. Considering that a majority of people likely believe that deadly force is permissible against a person about to commit murder…we can see how this could cause a very serious issue. Pro-choice individuals believe that a fetus only becomes a human baby once it leaves the uterus and takes a breath of air. Up until that point, it is not a person and could be killed with no more remorse or legal issues than the crushing of an ant (though some do believe that late-term abortion should not be legal). In fact, many of these pro-abortion people believe that anyone seeking to restrict or criminalize abortion is a tyrant. To them, the right to abortion is the most sacred right, just like free speech. As such, anyone trying to infringe on this right must be opposed, beaten, and possibly killed. Those who support abortion often find it unbearable to live among pro-life people. The union is terribly divided on the issue of abortion, with around 50% of people being firmly on each side of the debate. And very few people will ever be convinced by the other side. It is understandable why a person would not want to live next door to a murderer, and it is understandable why a person would not want to live next door to a tyrant who restricts women’s rights. 

Pro-gun individuals generally believe that the right to self-defense and the right to own property are natural rights that can never be infringed by politicians. Furthermore, they believe that politicians disarming the citizenry is the precursor to tyranny and genocide. These people will never give up their guns, and they will never support any restrictions on the right to own and carry guns, magazines, ammunition, and accessories. Anti-gun individuals generally believe that no citizens should have firearms and that only the government should have that much power. They often consider armed citizens to be inherently dangerous and/or psychotic. They insist that communities are safest when the government outlaws all guns. These people cannot bear the thought of living next door to a gun owner. They can’t stand knowing that the maniac could kill them and their children at any moment. Why should this person have to live in constant fear? Likewise, pro-gun citizens (like me) can hardly bear living next door to people who advocate for the use of government force (men with guns) outlawing and confiscating firearms. If my neighbor is okay with cops coming to my house and taking my guns, and killing me if I resist…I do not want to live anywhere near him! How could we share one state with one set of laws? Should we be forced to live together? Why can’t we each live in a place that makes us feel safe? 

Communists and socialists reject the idea of private property rights. They believe that the government should own all property so that they could distribute it equally/to those most in need. Capitalists believe that private property rights are the most fundamental human right and that liberty cannot exist without observing and protecting this right. Those who value liberty believe that a government that does not make the protection of private property rights its primary duty should not even exist; that is the government’s only real job. In fact, voluntaryists like me consider Marxists to be rather dangerous. Their fundamental belief is that I do not deserve to own private property. If someone already has an overabundance, the government should confiscate it and redistribute it. And the Supreme Court of the DC Empire is actually on their side! It is understandable why a libertarian would feel threatened if a Marxist moved in next door to them. If he doesn’t respect your private property and wishes it to be redistributed to the needy, what is stopping him from stealing your TV if you ever leave your window unlocked? I do not want to live in the same state as communists. They are dangerous. And communists often can’t bear living with greedy capitalists who victimize the working class and neglect the old and the ill. Why would the two people live under one roof or one set of laws?

Roughly half of the people in the united states believe that the 2020 election was the most secure election in history. And roughly half of the people believe that it was fraudulently stolen from Donald Trump. These people do not consider Joe Biden the legitimate president. The other half believes that Trump is the greatest threat to humanity in history and that his reelection would have ended the world. They believe that the 2020 election was the most secure election ever, but that even if there was cheating, it would not be as disturbing as a second Trump term. They also believe that the mostly peaceful protest on January 6th of 2021 was the worst insurrection in American history and that everyone involved should be imprisoned or killed. How could these two groups live under one roof?

Even on the issue of the coronavirus, the 340 million people in the union are almost perfectly divided on whether it is a serious issue and whether the government should control people in the name of ‘public health’. Half the people want crypto banned, and half want it totally legal. And some want some regulations. Half the people want more privacy, and half want more surveillance. Half the people want drugs legalized, and half the people want stricter drug enforcement. Half the people want open borders, and half the people want closed borders. Some want doctors to operate on children to change their genders, and some people want those doctors and parents hanged for child abuse. Some want homeschooling banned and some want government schools abolished. These differences cannot be reconciled. You cannot put a Nazi and a Rabbi in the same room, and then toss in an ISIS fighter, and then tell them they must share the same room forever and they must obey the same one set of rules forever. This is the perfect recipe for violence and discontent. 

These distinctions are present in nearly every major issue that humans face. We cannot ‘just get along’. We must split and go our separate ways while a peaceful separation is still possible. 

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Liberty Block or any of its members. We welcome all forms of serious feedback and debate.