If Texas were to threaten to secede from the Union...

I accept the definitions my opponent laid out. ________________________________________________________ The resolution in question is a tricky one to understand at first. Indeed, it would seem to most that a Texas which is attempting to defend its own state rights is on the side of integrity of individuality, and self-determination. What is more freedom-bound than that? Well, mainly the *intent*, and the *result*. Remember that we are not talking about the actual secession of the state of Texas - we're talking about the threat of secession being used in order to counteract legislation that the government of Texas deems undesirable. In my opponents example, this legislation includes things like cap-and-trade or the public option. (While these examples of legislation themselves have talk of an opt out clause for states [1][2], we'll ignore that for the sake of argument. ) With this debate, I will prove that the threat of secession by Texas is indeed more harmful to freedom, than it is conducive, not only for the people of Texas, but for the population of the United States in general. Argument #1: Intent The resolution is about the state of Texas threatening to secede from the United States of America, possibly over legislation that is perceived to harm Texan interests, possibly because of who is in power in the White House, possibly for special treatment. The reasons are many, but they do not include reasons such as pure populist will against being in the US any longer. This is because in order for the resolution to be fulfilled, it must be a *threat* of secession, on the part of the Texan government (as the state government is the official representative of Texas), in order for something specific to be gained - a change in policy, a new head of state, whatever. And, if it is a threat, it is meant to be a stated intent of harm against another party[3], in this case the other party being the United States government. While I will not complain about the usage of threats in the political sphere, it is clear that such threats are a menace against continued stability, and continued freedom. Threats such as the one being discussed limit the ability of one party to reasonably exercise its own power, not only because it threatens any peaceful and co-operative means of arbitration by breaking down order, but because it backs a party into a corner with no way out except to give in and accept the demands placed upon them, or have the threat acted upon by the other party. There is, truly, no way to argue against that simple fact. Threats limit the ability to act, to compromise, and to push forward peacefully. By threatening secession, the government of Texas has the direct *intent* to cut off the ability of the US government to exercise its freedom. That is far cry from allowing the US government to 'express' itself. My opponent may counter this with his definition of 'freedom' noted earlier; in advanced, I would like to note that the United States has jurisdiction over Texas by virtue of its powers[4] and precedent[5]. While the threat of secession is by all means legal and proper, it is clear by legal standards that the US federal government, which does have jurisdiction over the state of Texas in many different ways, including judicial and political, the intent of the threat limits the federal government's ability to exercise its freedom over its property - directly falling under my opponent's definition. Argument #2: Result But barring the intent of the threat, what would be the result? To begin, it would help to look at a striking example of the use of the threat of secession upon a country's domestic freedom. I won't get too far into the history, but the province of Quebec in Canada has always had a large influence. The question, of course, is why that is. There are obvious reasons; founding member of Confederation, long roots in the country, second-largest population and large economy. But, there are some other reasons as well. Since the 1960's, Quebec has had a very prevalent separatist movement. This culminated in two referendums on separation (1980[6] and 1995[7]) and a political party on the federal level which has often held the balance of power in minority parliaments. But it has also resulted in some other, sometimes nefarious and less-than-freedom-promoting situations, for populations both within and outside of Quebec. For example; as a result of the threat of secession, Quebec receives an undue amount of attention from the federal government at the expense of other provinces and powers. This was strikingly noticeable with the Charlottetown Accord[8], which sought to codify Quebec's status as a 'distinct society' within Canada, as well as giving the province powers over other various elements that were either exercised by the federal government, or not given to other provinces. Before Charlottetown, and in fact the cause of it, the Meech Lake Accords had a similar, albeit more disastrous outcome. An agreement meant to appease the threat of secession by Quebec separatists had the opposite effect, propelling separatists to become even more determined, at the expense of greater provincial rights and the signing of the repatriated Canadian Constitution. [9] To delve even further, and with a more recent example, the current government of Canada, under Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, granted Quebec its own delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, something that no other province has ever been given. [10] This served to appease Quebec and avoid bringing up yet another sore point, all due to the threat of secession. Clearly, there is something amiss here. By using the threat of secession - no, by its presence, even - Quebec has successfully blocked progress and freedom. By the threat of secession, Quebec has managed to: a) cause the collapse of two referendums designed to either give more powers of control over property (freedom, by my opponent's definition) to all provinces, or to itself, and the citizens of these jurisdictions b) hold sway over the fate of an entire country (and the 23 million citizens which live outside of Quebec's borders) through the inordinate amount of attention placed upon it by holding hostage the federal government, and through referendums that, while completely legal, would have force drastic changes upon the country in its entirety Clearly, the threat of secession has severely damaged the ability of freedom to flourish in Canada. In fact, I can give three other examples if need be - Kosovo, Scotland, and Belgium - so I am not at a loss of situations to make my case. Given these results, there is a clear precedent for my argument: the threat of secession lessens the ability of freedom to flourish. There is no evidence my opponent can provide to prove that the results will not be similar, nor can he deny the effectiveness of control that the threat of secession can exercise over political entities. And if he wishes to make a case over individual freedom, dare I say the obvious: what happens on a political level affects individuals. Now, to note, I have not necessarily condemned these actions. As any good political junky, I live and breathe this stuff. But there is no way in the world that I would say that these situations are conducive to freedom - they aren't. Possibly in the long run, freedom greater than what individuals and political entities had under the former regime may flourish, but remember - we aren't talking about what happens if a region secedes. We're talking about the simple threat of secession, and its effects upon freedom. As I have shown, the threat of secession is in now way conducive to freedom, for any and all parties involved.