Secession is justified (morally)

I apologize for some of the block text you may see. The ideas could not be logically separated at times. RebuttalsMy opponent mentions as his opening argument that " the moral obligation to respect autonomy justifies secession." However, the unanswered question is, to what degree must we respect autonomy? There are parameters on autonomous rule because of the necessity for government. I will show in my ensuing rebuttals that secession of a U.S state exists outside these parameters, and can therefore not be respected under moral obligation or be justified. The Parameters of Autonomous Rule Limitation 1: Only sentient beings can be OWED morality. An inanimate THING/CONCEPT cannot be owed morality. A GROUP of humans can be owed rights. However, the state is not a group of humans. The state is a political structure manifested in a mass of land with very limited sovereignty. The state is a THING. THINGS are not owed morality. The United States federal government is not the proxy and embodiment of Americans. Likewise, the state is not the proxy and embodiment of its citizens. The state is a political entity, existing only on a political map. The state therefore, being independent of the people, cannot hold the same rights as the people. Can a state government bear arms? Can a state government have free speech? Can state governments rally and protest against its federal superior? No. These are rights exclusive to human beings. Likewise, autonomy, under the assumption that this is a right to begin with, cannot be MORALLY obligated to a being that is not human. Autonomy is therefore not a RIGHT to which can be morally enforced when regarding secession. The notion that the state is the manifestation of the people simply does not carry. The state is a vacuous entity that HOUSES the people. The people may leave their nation at will in a hypothetical spontaneous mass exodus, but the state itself must always stay. The sovereignty of the land to which the state resides is a plank in the house. The state, essentially, gave out its sovereignty AND total autonomy when signing the Constitution and forming this house. How can it, without proper conditions such as successful revolution or consensus, reclaim something it relinquished? It cannot. 50 people used their own 50 planks to build a house for all of them to live in. Anyone of those PEOPLE can leave the house forever if they wish, but they cannot ever take back the plank, because it is no longer theirs. That plank is STATE SOVEREIGNTY & AUTONOMY, and that house is the United States.Limitation 2: AnarchyMy opponent stated: "The significance of Kant's argument is that we have an obligation of upholding morality.Therefore, whenever a violation of morality exists, there also exists a reciprocal obligation to remedy this violation."It is the requirement, using deontological ethics, that we must uphold and enforce morality, and punish its transgressors. However, how can one enforce anything if he does not have the power to do so? If people are to uphold a moral norm, what would stop individuals from seceding and rejecting that morality, free from persecution? The idea of secession is destructive of the establishment of any morality. Entities would simply leave when they disagree or are dissatisfied with that moral code. If we look at the secession of Southern America prior to the civil war, we see that it left primarily to escape the moral impositions of the federal government. South Carolina's "Declaration of Immediate Causes" reads:"[The federal government] encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue." (1) They merely left when the federal government and northern faction of the nation tried to enforce a moral rule. If we have an obligation to enforce morality, like my opponent interprets Kant's words, then we have an obligation against secession. How can an authority excercise its power if the bodies it governs may disempower them at any point? Lets look at this on a more minute scale. When my town passes a law that I dislike, I would suddenly be able to reclaim sovereignty over my private property and declare independence from America, on my 20 by 20 yard patch of land? This is anarchy in its purest form. ConclusionWe see that autonomy has two primary limitations that constitutes its parameters. One is the fact that THINGS, CONCEPTS, non-sentient objects, cannot have natural rights or be owed morality. The other is that secession is anarchy, and hence self-destructive of any moral code that endorses it. It simply has no moral bearing in a society that requires government, law, and authority. I therefore encourage you to vote CON. SourceDeclaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. 24 December 1860. Constitutional Convention (1860-1862). S 131055. South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina. (http://www.teachingushistory.org...;)