International Growth Of Islam

INTERNATIONAL GROWTH OF ISLAM

                          

       

Getty

                                                                     

Washington, D.C. -- The world's Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35 percent in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to a new, comprehensive report released today by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life on the size, distribution and growth of the Muslim population. The study is part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, an effort funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation to analyze religious change and its impact on societies around the world.

Over the next two decades, the worldwide Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population -- an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent for Muslims compared with 0.7 percent for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4 percent of the world's total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4 percent of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.


However, while the global Muslim population is predicted to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, it is also expected to grow at a slower pace in the next 20 years than it did in the previous two decades. From 1990 to 2010, the global Muslim population increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent; for the period from 2010 to 2030, the rate of growth is projected to be 1.5 percent.

These are among the key findings of The Future of the Global Muslim Population, which seeks to provide up-to-date estimates of the number of Muslims around the world in 2010 and to project the growth of the Muslim population from 2010 to 2030.

The report's projections are based both on past demographic trends and on assumptions about how these trends will play out in future years. If current trends continue:


Worldwide


· Seventy-nine countries will have a million or more Muslim inhabitants in 2030, up from 72 countries today.

· A majority of the world's Muslims (about 60 percent) will continue to live in the Asia-Pacific region, while about 20 percent will live in the Middle East and North Africa, as is the case today.

· Pakistan is expected to surpass Indonesia as the country with the single largest Muslim population.

· The portion of the world's Muslims living in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to rise; for example, in 20 years more Muslims are likely to live in Nigeria than in Egypt.
· Muslims will remain relatively small minorities in Europe and the Americas, but they are expected to constitute a growing share of the total population in these regions.

· Sunni Muslims will continue to make up an overwhelming majority of Muslims in 2030 (87 to 90 percent). The portion of the world's Muslims who are Shia may decline slightly, largely because of relatively low fertility in Iran, where more than a third of the world's Shia Muslims live.

· As of 2010, about three-quarters of the world's Muslims (74.1 percent) live in the 49 countries in which Muslims make up a majority of the population. More than a fifth of all Muslims (23.3 percent) live in non-Muslim-majority countries in the developing world. About 3 percent of the world's Muslims live in more-developed regions, such as Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

The Americas


· The number of Muslims (adults and children) in the United States is projected to more than double -- rising from 2.6 million (0.8 percent of the total U.S. population) in 2010 to 6.2 million (1.7 percent) in 2030 -- in large part because of immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims, making Muslims roughly as numerous as Jews or Episcopalians are in the U.S. today.

· Although several European countries will have substantially higher percentages of Muslims, the United States is projected to have a larger number of Muslims by 2030 than any European countries other than Russia and France.

· Children under age 15 make up a relatively small portion of the U.S. Muslim population today. Only 13.1 percent of Muslims are in the 0-14 age group. This reflects the fact that a large proportion of Muslims in the U.S. are newer immigrants who arrived as adults. But by 2030, many of these immigrants are expected to start families. If current trends continue, the number of U.S. Muslims under age 15 will more than triple, from fewer than 500,000 in 2010 to 1.8 million in 2030. The number of Muslim children ages 0-4 living in the U.S. is expected to increase from fewer than 200,000 in 2010 to more than 650,000 in 2030.

· About two-thirds of the Muslims in the U.S. today (64.5 percent) are first-generation immigrants (foreign-born), while slightly more than a third (35.5 percent) were born in the U.S. By 2030, however, more than four-in-ten of the Muslims in the U.S. (44.9 percent) are expected to be native-born.

· The top countries of origin for Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2009 were Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are expected to remain the top countries of origin for Muslim immigrants to the U.S. in 2030.


· The number of Muslims in Canada is expected to nearly triple in the next 20 years, from about 940,000 in 2010 to nearly 2.7 million in 2030. Muslims are expected to make up 6.6 percent of Canada's total population in 2030, up from 2.8 percent today. Argentina is expected to have the third-largest Muslim population in the Americas, after the U.S. and Canada. Argentina, with about 1 million Muslims in 2010, is now in second place, behind the U.S.


Europe


· The Muslim share of Europe's population is expected to grow by nearly a third, rising from 44.1 million (6 percent of Europe's total population) in 2010 to 58.2 million (8 percent) in 2030.

· The greatest increases -- driven primarily by continued migration -- are likely to occur in Western and Northern Europe, where Muslims will be approaching double-digit percentages of the population in several countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, Muslims are expected to comprise 8.2 percent of the population in 2030, up from an estimated 4.6 percent today. In Norway, Muslims are projected to reach 6.5 percent of the population in 2030, (up from 3.0 percent today); in Germany, 7.1 percent (up from 5.0 percent today); in Austria, 9.3 percent (up from 5.7 percent today); in Belgium, 10.2 percent (up from 6.0 percent today); and in France, 10.3 percent (up from 7.5 percent today).

· In 2030, Muslims are projected to make up more than 10 percent of the total population in 10 European countries: Kosovo (93.5 percent), Albania (83.2 percent), Bosnia-Herzegovina (42.7 percent), Republic of Macedonia (40.3 percent), Montenegro (21.5 percent), Bulgaria (15.7 percent), Russia (14.4 percent), Georgia (11.5 percent), France (10.3 percent) and Belgium (10.2 percent).


· Russia will continue to have the largest Muslim population (in absolute numbers) in Europe in 2030. Its Muslim population is expected to rise from 16.4 million in 2010 to 18.6 million in 2030. The growth rate for the Muslim population in Russia is projected to be 0.6 percent annually over the next two decades. By contrast, Russia's non-Muslim population is expected to shrink by an average of 0.6 percent annually over the same period.


· France had an expected net influx of 66,000 Muslim immigrants in 2010, primarily from North Africa. Muslims comprised an estimated two-thirds (68.5%) of all new immigrants to France in the past year. Spain was expected to see a net gain of 70,000 Muslim immigrants in 2010, but they account for a much smaller portion of all new immigrants to Spain (13.1%). The U.K.'s net inflow of Muslim immigrants in the past year (nearly 64,000) was forecast to be nearly as large as France's. More than a quarter (28.1%) of all new immigrants to the U.K. in 2010 are estimated to be Muslim.

Asia-Pacific


· Nearly three-in-ten people living in the Asia-Pacific region in 2030 (27.3 percent) will be Muslim, up from about a quarter in 2010 (24.8%) and roughly a fifth in 1990 (21.6 percent).

· Muslims make up only about 2 percent of the population in China, but because the country is so populous, its Muslim population is expected to be the 19th largest in the world in 2030.

Middle East-North Africa


· The Middle East-North Africa will continue to have the highest percentage of Muslim- majority countries. Of the 20 countries and territories in this region, all but Israel are projected to be at least 50 percent Muslim in 2030, and 17 are expected to have a population that is more than 75 percent Muslim in 2030, with Israel, Lebanon and Sudan (as currently demarcated) being the only exceptions.

· Nearly a quarter (23.2 percent) of Israel's population is expected to be Muslim in 2030, up from 17.7 percent in 2010 and 14.1 percent in 1990. During the past 20 years, the Muslim population in Israel has more than doubled, growing from 0.6 million in 1990 to 1.3 million in 2010. The Muslim population in Israel (including Jerusalem but not the West Bank and Gaza) is expected to reach 2.1 million by 2030.

· Egypt, Algeria and Morocco currently have the largest Muslim populations (in absolute numbers) in the Middle East-North Africa. By 2030, however, Iraq is expected to have the second-largest Muslim population in the region -- exceeded only by Egypt -- largely because Iraq has a higher fertility rate than Algeria or Morocco.

Sub-Saharan Africa


· The Muslim population in sub-Saharan Africa is projected to grow by nearly 60 percent in the next 20 years, from 242.5 million in 2010 to 385.9 million in 2030. Because the region's non-Muslim population also is growing at a rapid pace, Muslims are expected to make up only a slightly larger share of the region's population in 2030 (31 percent) than they do in 2010 (29.6 percent).

· Various surveys give differing figures for the size of religious groups in Nigeria, which appears to have roughly equal numbers of Muslims and Christians in 2010. By 2030, Nigeria is expected to have a slight Muslim majority (51.5 percent).
The 209-page report contains detailed analysis and description of the factors that drive this growth. The main factors, or inputs, in the population projections are: births (fertility rates), deaths (mortality rates), migration (emigration and immigration), and the age structure of the population (the number of people in various age groups). Related factors -- which are not direct inputs into the projections but which underlie vital assumptions about the way Muslim fertility rates are changing and Muslim populations are shifting -- include: education (particularly of women), economic well-being (standards of living), contraception and family planning, urbanization (movement from rural areas into cities and towns), and religious conversion.
The current population data that underpin this report were culled from the best sources available on Muslims in each of the 232 countries and territories for which the U.N. Population Division provides general population estimates. Many of these baseline statistics were published in the Pew Forum's 2009 report, Mapping the Global Muslim Population, which acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources of data -- including census reports, large-scale demographic studies and general population surveys -- to estimate the number of Muslims in every country and territory. All of those estimates have been updated for 2010, and some have been substantially revised.
The full report, which includes an executive summary, interactive maps and sortable data tables, is available on the Pew Forum's website.

Breaking News : Bank Runs Hit Greece and Thomas Jefferson is in the Building, Next!

Sunday   June 28, 2015

Bank Runs Hit Greece and Thomas Jefferson is in the Building, Next!

by Tom Heneghan, International Intelligence Expert

source

UNITED States of America  -  It can now be reported that the nation of Greece will default on payments to both the ECB (European Central Bank) and the IMF (International Monetary Fund).  This default will trigger a 17.3 million dollar-euro meltdown in worldwide derivative markets. 

As reported in previous briefings, the word for the day is "contagion" with the 17.3 million in derivatives escalating to 17.3 trillion.

At this hour, all worldwide banks are not safe.   The Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called for a referendum on the Greek "bail-out" plan proposed by European creditors (the Deutsche Bank) that is to be scheduled on July 5th, guarantees that Greece will leave the European Union, print their own currency, the drachma, and open the door directly for Spain and Portugal to go next.

P.S.  The European Central Bank (ECB) and the IMF's decision today to cut off Greece from any further "bail-out" funds guarantees that the Greek government will declare a "Bank Holiday" and capital controls first thing Monday morning.

Remember, there is NO liquidity in the system; there is NO cash, it is all derivatives; reference:  I.O.U.s between banks.

Note:  Remember the 7.2 million euros in emergency Greek aid that has been cut off by the European Central Bank is 90% derivatives.

When hypothesized out expotentially, the 7.2 million turns into 17.3 million and when you throw Spain and Portugal into the mix, BINGO!  It is 17.3 trillion.

Again, at this hour, every major worldwide bank in Asia, Europe, South America and the United States face major derivative contagion worse than the Lehman Brothers crisis that triggered the financial debacle in 2008.

source

In closing, congratulations to TIME magazine for publishing a special edition release titled "Thomas Jefferson America's Enduring Revolutionary".  Every living American citizen should read this.  It is an outstanding piece and it will explain to you thoroughly what being a free American is all about, it comes directly from the words of our greatest American, the author of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the founder of the U.S. Marine Corps, Thomas Jefferson.

source

At this hour, the patriotic U.S. Military, the U.S. Marine Corps and the Joint U.S. French Intelligence Task Force is pleased that Thomas Jefferson is in the building as the Second American Revolution is imminent!

source

source

- - -

"Al Qaeda is nothing more than an extension of the operatus linked to U.S. intelligence that was allowed, by script, to remove itself as a rogue break away entity of the U.S. government

allowed to de-compartmentalize from oversight, and was run instead by Gary Best rogue 'Black Ops' specialists for scripted activity outside of the U.S. government, with its funding being orchestrated through the Pakistani secret police,
 
an entity of the U.S. government itself." (2006)

~ Tom Heneghan, great American Patriot and International Intelligence Expert

 
source

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. (1755) 
 ~ Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, great American Patriot

The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

enhanced excerpt

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,  it is their right, it is their duty,  to throw off such Government, and to prove new Guards for their future security. (1776)  ~ Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father, great American Patriot, author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd U.S. President

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.htm

Warning! Graphic Video! LEAKED VIDEO: ISIS Puts Innocent People In A Giant Cage, Locks Them Inside, Sinks Them Into A Pool And Drowns Them To Death. They Then Take Another Group Of People, Wrap Them With Explosive Rope And Blow Them Up To Pieces - Walid Shoebat

By Ted on June 23, 2015 in Featured, General

By Theodore Shoebat

ISIS here is showing a combination of execution innovations, with footage unlike anything we have seen before: heads exploding and flying like projectiles, people incinerated with napalm burning them alive, locking people into a giant cage and drowning them to death while recording their screams underwater. Truly sickening. ISIS as it seems are tired of slow beheadings. In the end of the video they perfected an instant beheading technique. They take a number of men, wrap them with explosive rope and blow the heads to shoot upwards like a projectiles. The puppet Obama and his analogy calling ISIS “jayvee team putting on Lakers uniforms” just shows how ridiculous our government is. Perhaps after watching ISIS’s sickest, just released video, that only this will finally wake Americans up, especially that we had 52 attempts linked to ISIS style activity in the U.S in 2015 alone. Here, the ISIS killing fields that no one in the media will ever show:

http://shoebattube.com/player/embed_player.php?vid=968&width=600&height=370&autoplay=no

As to the victims, they were accused of being spies, and ISIS had them confess to their supposed culpability before killing them. It is truly horrifying to watch this. Death to all of these heathens, for the glory of Christ. This is why the Crusades fought against these demonic people, and it is no wonder that St. Bernard wrote:

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and succumb more confidently. When he strikes, he does service to Christ, and to himself when he succumbs. Nor does he bear the sword in vain. He is God’s minister in the punishment of evil doers and the praise of well doers. Surely, if he kills an evil doer, he is not a man-killer, but, if I may so put it, an evil killer. Clearly he is reckoned the avenger of Christ against evildoers, and the defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know he has not perished, but has come safely home. The death which he inflicts is Christ’s gain, and that which he suffers, his own. At the death of the pagan, the Christian exults because Christ is exalted; in the death of the Christian the King’s liberality is conspicuous when the knight is ushered home and rewarded. (St. Bernard, In Praise of a New Knighthood, ch.2)

Islam must be uprooted and destroyed, but that is not going to happen until Christ comes, and with Him as our King and General, the armies of Christ will vanquish and utterly destroy this religion of the Antichrist.
All this gets to show that we need to get the Christians out of Syria and Iraq as such persecution will increase as we see these events unfold. Rescue Christians helps Christians who live under the Muslim yoke flee the persecution. To see an example out of the thousands we rescue, click here, and listen to the amazing testimonies first hand on how you can help and make a difference, now in this life and for eternity.
The video of these murders was released from the Nineveh Plains province in Iraq, which is heavily populated by Christians. This type of brutality is being done to Christians and we have to get them out before its too late.
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal”.CONSIDER DONATING TO RESCUE CHRISTIANS

KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON TO CHRISTIANS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD. WATCH OUR DOCUMENTARY THAT SHOWS THE REALITY OF CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
http://shoebat.com/2015/06/23/leaked-video-isis-puts-innocent-people-in-a-giant-cage-locks-them-inside-sinks-them-into-a-pool-and-drowns-them-to-death-they-then-take-another-group-of-people-wrap-them-with-explosive-rope-and-b/

Marriage 'persecution' starts

Family group: Marriage 'persecution' starts

'Already we see evidence that we will lose our First Amendment right of free speech'

Published: 21 hours ago

At mid-morning on Friday the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it had created same-sex “marriage” for homosexuals and lesbians across the United States, using a convoluted logic from Justice Anthony Kennedy that included citations to Cicero and Confucius.

Within hours, the persecution of those who disagree had started, according to a statement from a family group based in Pennsylvania.
“Already we see evidence right in our state that we will lose our First Amendment right of free speech simply because we do not agree with today’s SCOTUS decision and understand the historic definition of marriage,” said a statement released by the American Family Association of Pennsylvania. “What better way to say all are on board with this decision than to silence the voices of those not in agreement?”
The comments stemmed from an announcement from editorialists at Pennlive.com. that they would no longer allow opinion or editorial pieces “in opposition to same-sex marriage.”
“These unions are now the law of the land,” the publication said.
And it likened those who still support traditional and biblical marriage, despite the court’s opinion, to those who are “racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.”
The family group responded, “Pennlive, the Harrisburg area news organization, has announced a change in op-eds and letters to the editor, stating, ‘As a result of Friday’s ruling, Pennlive/The Patriot-news will very strictly limit op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’”
Said Diane Gramley, the organization’s chief, “Already we see evidence right in our state that we will lose our First Amendment right of free speech simply because we do not agree.”

The organization said, “This newspaper organization is equating homosexuality to race – a big mistake as race is immutable or unchangeable and homosexuality is changeable as evidenced by the thousands who have left the lifestyle. PennLive/The Patriot-News has bought into the lie!”
Gramley continued, “Penn/Live/The Patriot-News wants to end the debate, but it has only just begun. Five unelected Justices of the Supreme Court cannot redefine true marriage any more than one unelected judge in Pennsylvania can. Marriage is still and always will be between one man and one woman. As pointed out in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion, America has always been about the freedom to debate an issue. To stifle that debate is to stifle the American way.
“However, we will see an increase in persecution against those who hold the traditional view of marriage, as evidenced by the newspaper’s change in policy. This decision is not a march to progress, but the exact opposite,” she said.
The Daily Caller jumped on the controversy, calling the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, company’s stance “hardcore.”
The report said the publication at first said it would “no longer accept, nor will it print, op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.”
The DC reported newspaper officials later added, “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”
Commenters, the DC reported, were ticked.
“Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by the ‘free’ press,” wrote an anonymous “Big Jasper.” “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”
The newspaper’s reporting followed its editorial policy already: “In the more than four decades since, a union that was viewed as unnatural and even a hideous provocation to violence is now commonplace and celebrated. On Friday, the United States crossed a similar threshold, continuing a long road to acceptance of same-sex unions.”
The news organization eventually confirmed “some” letters critiquing the court decision will be accepted.
It did describe some of those submissions with criticisms as “hate speech.”


Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/06/family-group-marriage-persecution-starts/#iiAQOiz4SvvrE20Z.99

The Truth About Self-Determination and Secession

THE TRUTH ABOUT SELF-DETERMINATION AND SECESSION

Without a meaningful ability to make choices — or provide a new choice via secession — no truly voluntary choice has been made

                                  

by Ryan McMaken | Mises.org | June 27, 2015

The secessionist impulse doesn’t seem to be going away in Europe.

This month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the latest drive for secession comes from Sardinia. The leaders of the movement propose that the island, only part of Italy since the 1860s, be joined to Switzerland instead.
The Sardinians have a tough row to hoe in convincing the Swiss to accept them as the newest Swiss canton (Sardinians do have a coastline to offer, however), but the whole episode illustrates yet again that the national borders drawn on the map over the past two centuries are beginning to outlive their usefulness.

What Is Self-Determination?

As with the Venetians, the Scots, and the Catalonians, the matter of Sardinian secession and/or annexation involves any number of referenda and discussions about “self-determination.” And in this case, as with most similar cases, one is left with the problem of determining how one can morally go about switching state affiliations without precipitating war or accusations of human rights abuses. The Europeans don’t phrase it this way, but when they discuss the need for plebiscites and “democracy,” this is what they mean.

Certainly, this problem was not at all alien to the laissez-faire liberals of the nineteenth century, including Ludwig von Mises, who wrote: “No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” Mises then went on to defend “the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong.” Murray Rothbard explained Mises’s position further:

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

On a purely technical level, it’s easy to imagine this sort of territorial plebiscitary process. The problem one is left with in these cases, however, is what to do with minorities that oppose the secession or annexation by other states. This is the claim made by nationalists who oppose secession by Catalonia, for example. The nationalists assert that even if a majority were to prefer independence, minorities within Catalonia itself would be disenfranchised by secession. The nationalists’ solution in this scenario, therefore, is to disenfranchise the majority. But this “solution” is nothing more than an appeal to the central government to unilaterally “settle” the problem with force. In contrast, the proper solution lies not in centralization but in further breaking down the size of each territory into smaller pieces to account for demographic realities and minority populations (which are rarely evenly dispersed) within the regions themselves.

Doesn’t This Lead To Anarchism?

But if any community, no matter how small, can simply break off and join another state or remain independent, what’s to stop single households from doing this? Rothbard asked this same question, and it brings us back to Mises’s comments on self-determination. Mises writes:

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.

In other words, anarchism is theoretically justifiable, although technically problematic. Mises no doubt has a point here since there are economies of scale in both military and civil defense. It is debatable whether or not the technical consideration — from the state’s perspective — cannot be overcome with technological innovation, however. Bureaucratic administration (whether governmental or private) may have required a certain minimum size of departments and territorial units in Mises’s day, but it’s unclear that such problems are insurmountable today given the decentralization and networking capabilities of modern administrative and communications technology. Nevertheless, from a sociological and economic standpoint, Mises’s concern about there being a practical “floor” to the extent to which states can be broken up appears to be useful. After all, there is no denying that people like to join together in groups for a variety of purposes not limited to military and economic ends. The mega-states of the modern world are held together by coercion, but cities, towns, and communities are naturally occurring phenomena that pre-date states. Moreover, just as I give up the freedom to talk loudly or adjust the volume when I watch a movie at a theater instead of my home, virtually everyone — even in a system of theoretically limitless secession — would give up at least some of his own personal prerogatives in the name of joining a municipality, league, or association that could provide legal and defense services. At the same time, individuals would be careful to keep the majority of power at the local level, since individuals can still exercise influence over localized governments. (This is not the case in a huge state like the United States where an individual who is not a billionaire has nearly zero influence over anything the national government does.) But this raises a new question. If people “choose” to give up certain prerogatives to join with others in cities and towns, isn’t this true of all states? Haven’t people “voluntarily” chosen to be part of Russia, or part of the United States? The answer here is “no” because without a meaningful ability to make choices — or provide a new choice via secession — no truly voluntary choice has been made.

A Sliding Scale From One-World Government To Statelessness

As I’ve noted here, states erect legal and practical barriers to extend their monopoly powers over a large area, and over many facets of life in order to diminish choices and options. Likewise, states generally prohibit the creation of new states, so as to further strengthen their monopolies. So, the extent to which one is voluntarily subject to a civil government moves along a sliding scale. At one end of the scale is a one-world mega-state where no choice is possible at all. At the other end of the scale is a totally stateless society. Most — if not all — of human history has been characterized by civil governments that fall somewhere in between. Some civil governments are very large and very coercive. That is, they are quintessential states. Some governments are very small and very decentralized and are much less state-like. These later governments must compete with numerous nearby options for citizens and capital. Naturally, a world with fewer states and very centralized states offers few options, which in turn means fewer choices for persons, cities, towns, and communities. In spite of this, we still sometimes encounter the bizarre argument that secession is bad because secession “creates a new state.” But, just as consumers of pizza benefit when a new Pizza Hut opens down the street to compete with Domino’s Pizza, consumers of defense services and legal systems benefit when a new competitor becomes available in their neighborhood of states. If Domino’s Pizza managed to use force to prevent any other Pizza chain from opening up in town, that would clearly be a bad thing. Likewise, when a state uses force to prevent the creation of a new state, or prevent the movement of a region from one state to another, we can see this is undesirable because it limits choice, freedom, innovation, and all the good things we associate with a lack of monopoly power.

So Can Sardinia Morally Secede?

In the unlikely event that Switzerland declared it would love to welcome Sardinia into the confederation, Italian unionists would still oppose secession on legal and sentimental grounds. They would also claim that Sardinia cannot secede because some Sardinians wish to remain part of Italy. If a majority of Sardinians actually wished to secede, though, then Italian unionists are making the arbitrary claim that most Sardinians should be forced to remain in Italy because some Sardinians say so. And of course, the power of the Italian state would be hung as a constant threat over the heads of secessionists as well. The answer to this conundrum is not to simply accept the might-makes-right argument, of course. The answer is to therefore break Sardinia itself into smaller pieces. If the people of North Sardinia want to secede, and the people of South Sardinia, do not, then our problem has been solved. Even after this division is made, there are sure to still be disagreeable minorities, but with each reduction in the size of the territory in question, the amount of choice for those in the unfortunate minority increases. A move to South Sardinia from North Sardinia (to escape the secessionists) is far less disruptive to one’s life than a move from Sardinia to the Italian mainland for the same purposes. There is no perfect and clean method of breaking down nation-states, but as the Americans, the Irish, the Chechens, and many others could tell us, state intervention to prevent secession is often the bloodiest and messiest option of all.

http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-self-determination-and-secession/