I sort of like this idea, but in all honesty, I think the time for secessionist movements has passed. That's not a snarky comment about the Civil War--it just s

I sort of like this idea, but in all honesty, I think the time for secessionist movements has passed. That's not a snarky comment about the Civil War--it just seems to me that the idea of having a sovereign state with a monopoly of force over some geographic terrain seems outmoded to me. China Mieville wrote a novel a couple years back, The City and the City, that is exactly the type of thing I want to see more of: pushing the boundaries of what we consider a plausible political entity. In it, there's one city but two governments that are both sovereign within its limits, and people choose to be part of one or another. I'm also reminded of the historical political mandalas of Southeast Asia--one city state might simultaneously be a client of two other states. Is either the future? Of course not. But my point is that our vision of what governments have to look like is sadly limited, and our myopia has caused us to see the Eurocentric romantic state nationalism of the past two centuries as the only way for a civilization to exist. Think bigger, folks! (Or smaller, as the case may be.)