 This is Mises Weekends with your host, Jeff Dice. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back once again to Mises Weekends. I'm your host, Jeff Dice. Very pleased to be joined with a returning guest, Michael Bolden, from the 10th Amendment Center. You can follow him on Twitter at 10th Amendment and his website or his organization's website is 10thamendmentscenter.com. And we are talking about secession and cal exit, two things that have been in the news of late. So, Michael, with that said, how are you? I'm doing great. Thanks for having me, Jeff. Well, thank you for joining us. So, this is great. I want to say this not mockingly. I honestly believe this is a good thing, but it has been fascinating since Trump won to watch the left start to talk about and embrace things like federalism and states' rights and nullification and localism and tax resistance, you know, the whole panoply of stuff we might call Irish democracy. Isn't it just amazing to watch how people's perception of democratic outcomes changes so abruptly when the wrong guy wins? Well, I mean, decentralization is the last refuge of the loser is what they've been telling us for years. Well, it looks like the other team lost. And many of them are actually making excellent arguments about these principles. In fact, I actually just read something in the nation of all places that was talking about using the state's rights view, the decentralization approach to deal with various issues under the Trump administration. And in fact, they even talked about how the state of Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 back in the 19th century. This is something that we've been talking about for years here, rejecting, resisting and nullifying in practice or law various federal acts. And they didn't talk about it as, oh, this is racist because obviously it's not to actually just think about things locally. But they're definitely using some very good talking points, some of them better than what I could do. Yeah, it's interesting. Secession has been viewed as a dirty word for a long time by folks on the left. I've been doing some reading on the primary group behind the Cal Exit Movement promoting secession from the state of California and it was depressing because I read a Wall Street Journal article, Michael, and the Wall Street Journal says, well, secession by the state of California would require amending the U.S. Constitution. And then they just say this glibly and, of course, I groan when I read this. And then they go on to say, you know, they don't even mention particular case or cases. They just say the Supreme Court's decided this. You know, we're still in this time where there's so much misinformation and a lack of understanding about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the actual events and sequence of events around the Civil War itself. So we're still seemingly stuck with this idea that secession was, A, not contemplated by the founders and, B, as an illegal act. Well, I think it's interesting because my understanding of the ballot measure that they're collecting signatures for right now is that the ballot measure itself is simply a question and it also references the idea of, well, going forward, we're going to have to amend the Constitution. So I guess here in California, even when they try to approach something that has solid philosophical underpinnings, they get the message actually wrong. But even if you were to cite the Supreme Court case, Texas v. White, that was back in 1869, that people used to claim that states can't do this or they need an amendment or they got to fight a war basically to be able to leave, we actually just published an article republished from the Library of Law and Liberty website by a guy named James Rogers who actually argues that Texas v. White doesn't require such a thing at all either. So even in the mainstream political thought, I would say that the view that there has to be an amendment for people to decide to have their own country is absurd. Well, it's also a non-starter politically. I mean, imagine this initiative getting through the initiative process in California, getting through the state legislature in California, and then having to go to supermajorities in the U.S. Congress and then ratification by the states. So I looked a little bit at the yes, California independence website. It's interesting. First of all, there's this idea that the Secretary of State in California cleared them for signature gathering. I'm not sure what cleared means legally in this sense. It sounds sort of ominous that the Secretary of State has to clear what you're doing. But I noticed a couple of things. I mean, first of all, and I'm sure you know this and some of our listeners know this movement began before Trump to be fair. It really began in earnest after the 2014 Scottish referendum. And they do, to their credit point out prominently on their website, that they're talking about a nonviolent, agreeable, amicable separation. The one thing that I might add, though, is from what I've seen, apart from a few prominent potential private equity or Silicon Valley backers, that it seems like a very unserious organization, just a motley assemblage of two or three people, one of whom lives in Moscow, which has created all kinds of strange questions. So it doesn't seem to be an organization or a movement that has any real California heavyweights behind it. I'm not seeing a lot of financial backing behind it either. But I have been seeing, and living in Los Angeles for a long time, I'm surrounded by folks that would be opposed to the Trump administration. And I'm here just on my personal Facebook page or by text. I'm hearing from people, oh, did you see that poll that says a third of Californians are open to the idea of seceding? So I think that's pretty significant, especially at this stage of the game so early after the inauguration and without any major financial backing that people are actually open to the idea. This type of thing has been going on for a long time. If you have been following this, the Vermont secession movement was pretty strong under the Bush administration. They haven't changed. It's not like the folks, their greenies, their environmentalists in Vermont, they believe that they should have their own country. And it's been the same, whether it's Bush or Obama in office. And I don't think this is something that should be relegated to left or right. It's, hey, we have to acknowledge, and I think this is something that I heard you talking about. Maybe it was when you were talking with Tom Woods on his show recently. We don't have to necessarily all agree on the same thing, but if we acknowledge that people have different viewpoints in how to organize societies, you have to allow people to do that in their own area. This one-size-fits-all solution is obviously creating a lot of problems. And both sides are losers. Now progressives are feeling the brunt of what they see as a one-size-fits-all Trumpism being shoved down their throats. I want to talk a little bit about just on a very hypothetical level what an independent California would look like. As far as making it happen when you mention maybe a third of Californians might have some sympathies towards this, I think the saga of Quebec being a potentially breakaway republic or province from the Canadian federal government tells us a lot because I think support was much higher than a third in Quebec and they never quite managed to get it done and in part that was because they were a bit of a basket case. Economically, California, there's some contrast here. I mean, we're talking about a GDP, I'm reading in the Wall Street Journal of about $2.5 trillion annually which would place them about number sixth in the largest world economies. They have, you know, there's 40 million Californians. I'm no longer a Californian but was and that would place it much larger than some of the countries within the EU. Obviously it has a huge Pacific Ocean giving it access to Pacific Rim markets. It has multiple ports. It has agricultural land which really requires a lot of water. That's a different story. Apart from the Colorado River, it does have snowpack in the Sierras to provide fresh water. It does have desalination plants beginning to come online. It certainly has industry in the form of Silicon Valley and Hollywood and tourism and resorts and skiing and mountains and backpacking and natural beauty beyond compare. Talk about why it's not so crazy to think that California could be just fine on its own. There's something I've got to add to what you just said. I think that kind of covers it. It's all the natural resources, the entertainment, great property. It's extremely expensive. I've talked to a lot of conservatives who basically take the position, okay, California, screw them. Let's get rid of them. The rest of the country will be better. They can go fail. But I actually take a little bit different view and I don't really have anything concrete to base it on other than a gut instinct. But I think without relying on the entire union of states, California might be forced to kind of play around with some things that advance freedom because if they're on their own and they keep going in the direction that they have been going, things are going to get really bad. And then at that point, they're really going to have to, I think in the long one, it could create really good outcomes. Would it be a California, Switzerland? I doubt it, but I think there's a chance. Right now, there's no chance of that. Well, there's certainly some flies in you. I mean, one of the big ones is their public pension issues, both at the local and city level, at the county level and especially at the state level. So I think that when you talk about conservatives saying, let California go, part of what they mean is that they would take their public pension liabilities with them. The issue of social security and federal employee pensions, I think, is much easier dealt with because there are lots of people today who live in foreign countries and collect social security. There are retirees in the Philippines and Mexico and all over the world. So I don't see that as a problem. And I also think that it would be in both parties' interests to have, meaning the former U.S. state of California and the rest of the U.S. have open trade and diplomacy and travel in between California certainly would benefit from tourism, if nothing else. So I don't necessarily see it as so far-fetched. Now here's a fly in the white man, and I want to pose this to you because you probably get this kind of question a lot, which is, well, that's great if the majority of Californians dislike Trump, which I think is probably true. But what about that really embedded, let's say, third of the state that lives inland, not in the Hoiditoide coastal areas, the Central Valley, Bakersfield, the more conservative, rural and ranching and farming parts of the state? Gee whiz, Bolton, if you got it your way, these poor people would now be forced to live in this left-wing society that they didn't choose for themselves. And yeah, sure rich people can vote with their feet, but the average guy, not so easy. So would we in effect be disenfranchising Californians who, maybe they like Trump, maybe they voted for Trump? Well, I mean, I don't think it's going to be any worse. They still live in California today, and they're under the regime of so many policies that they probably oppose. And I don't think there's too many federal policies that any of us who believe in liberty really should be in support of. So I think one way or the other, you're going to have a greater chance to affect the change that you want if the political regime above you is smaller rather than larger. So a California state, a California country is still pretty massive, but trying to change things here in California as it is are almost impossible in Washington to see even far worse. So I think there's a slightly better chance of being able to do something good in California. Should it break away? And then referring back to the idea of, okay, well, if it's economic breakmanship at this point, the way that California runs its government, not that that isn't happening in Washington as well, I think driving to the brink may force the state to actually consider some other options as well. People talk about military bases in federal land as well. Would it really be so horrible for the federal government to maybe cede some of those bases to California, let California have a national guard of sorts? Or would it be so terrible to say that California and maybe even other breakaway states could handle most things, criminal law, et cetera, locally, but be in some sort of NATO type agreement with the larger U.S. to continue to provide some sort of regional military defense? Are we talking in a practical matter or philosophically? Well, I think we're talking both. I mean, you know, this is, look, this is an aspirational show here on Mises Weekends, okay? So we're trying to create a better world. I'm all for California's succession. I think it would be a really fantastic idea to take a political subdivision of 40 million people, you know, apart from the 320 million. So you basically cut it down by about 90 percent and see what results. In other words, I'm not a libertarian who wants to impose libertarian ideas on people who aren't interested. Right. Let the state of California have its own version of single payer. Let them have their own version of gun control. Well, if you don't allow people to make those choices and learn from their mistakes, eventually they're going to try to take over the national apparatus and force everyone to do it. And so that's the idea of decentralization. Now, as far as military, I think the short version is we have way, everyone on earth has way too much so-called protection from the U.S. military already. So the worst case scenario, let's say all of those bases were closed, I think this would be a net plus for the entire globe. Yes. And I don't think California would be fearing an imminent attack on its shores from Japanese show guns. Maybe California might need to start considering, you know, getting out of the way and letting people exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as well, too. A famous Californian on the right, Victor Davis Hansen, he's a longtime farmer and rancher in the Central Valley of California. He's also a professor, very knowledgeable in classics. I think he's still affiliated with the Hoover Institute at Stanford. He wrote an article for National Review lately recently talking about how Californians now talking about secession and people on the left are the new Confederates. And it's interesting to see how both sides are willing to see the same argument differently depending on whether they're guy or gal is in power. Is there any hope that we can take from this, a ratcheting back of accusations? Is there any hope that our progressive friends will look at this and say, you know what, maybe we were a little bit wrong when we called all those secessionist neoconfederates? Well, first of all, I wonder if the Southern Poverty Law Center is going to continue labeling. I mean, I made their right wing watch a few years ago as one of these leaders of a pseudo-racist right wing nutcase organization. So I wonder if they'll continue doing that. Now we're having this conversation here, Jeff. I doubt it, of course, especially because most of these organizations tend to be just partisan hacks. Now Will, do we have hope? I think so. I mean, I wouldn't be doing what I do if I thought there was absolutely no hope. I'm definitely not getting rich off of this type of work. I could find far better jobs to do to have a much better income. But I do believe there's hope. I think that every time there's a changing of the guard and some people go to the refuge of decentralization because their team isn't in charge, I think a few people, a small percentage of those people stick around and recognize it in principle rather than just switching teams. I think vast majority will just gladly switch teams depending on who's running things in Washington, DC. But this is a long slog. We're not talking about flipping around hundreds of years of growth of government in one month or one year or one administration. I think we have to have our principles be perfect or as close to perfect as we can for the long term, whether it's future generations or not, but then look at things in a strategic way and see things on a step-by-step basis right now. I know that your hipster pad there in the gentrifying garment district of LA, I know that that neighborhood is a hotbed of neoconfederate racist rednecks, but... I should take SELC on a tour of the neighborhood. Yeah. Well, look, I mean, your whole organization is dedicated to the idea of decentralized political power as originally envisioned under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. And you're going to be speaking on a panel at our upcoming event for those of you who are in Southern California, not this Saturday, but the following Saturday, the 25th. If you're in driving distance or hearing distance, we'll be in San Diego that morning with Patrick Byrne, Tom Woods, No Me Prins, among other guests, but also Michael Bolden. And Michael, your panel is going to talk presumably about local action and the virtue of local political activism or other kinds of activism as opposed to trying to influence faraway Washington. And now that we have the left interested in death by 1,000 cuts from far away, give us a little preview of how you see this burgeoning localism movement. We even see it in food and non-political things. Well, we're seeing it all across the political spectrum, actually. I would say the modern, what we call the modern nullification movement. It's a very broad term, really started here in California in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 215 legalizing marijuana supposedly for limited medical uses while the federal government said they couldn't do it. They did it anyways today. There are now eight states that have legalized for recreational. I think it's 28 or 30 states overall that are defying Washington. But then again, it's not just weed. There's certainly various other issues. There are a number of cities, although I'd like to see many more that have said, hey, we're not going to participate in federal gun control. We hear a lot of people talking about or complaining about the 300 plus so-called sanctuary cities saying that the federal government needs to march in and stop them or cut off their funding. But you know what we never hear? People complaining about the 300 gun rights sanctuary cities. You know why? Because they don't exist, but they should. I think this principle has proven to be very effective because people wouldn't be complaining about it if it wasn't getting some kind of job done that the opponents don't want to see. Instead of I would say rather than trying to force more centralization, I would urge people to learn from that and actually use that same tool to advance causes they believe in. And it could be food freedom, like advancing the ability to get raw milk. We see that starting to happen in some areas. On the right to keep and bear arms. Why not health care freedom? Why not authorize people to have direct primary care contracts is what they call them rather than having a highly regulated government propped up industry for health care. There are various things that this can be done on. And I'd like to see sanctuary cities or sanctuary states for liberty all over. Well, wouldn't that be great? I mean, while we're on this topic of secession, we tend to think in political terms that secession has to be this political uprising has to be based on geography. But what if we could have issue by issue secession in the digital age? What if you could start having sanctuary cities where we're a city that opts out of Obamacare? We're a city that opts out of Social Security. We're a city that opts out of gun control. I think that would be a beautiful thing. Now with that, we're out of time. Come see us at our event in San Diego next Saturday the 25th. Michael Bolden will be there. Michael, thanks again for joining us and ladies and gentlemen. Have a great weekend. Subscribe to Mises Weekends via iTunes U, Stitcher, and SoundCloud, or listen on Mises.org and YouTube.