First of all, it seems in this chapter Larimer is pushing the idea that a true democracy would allow secession from those that want to be independent of government control. Citing freedom and democracy.
This already exists. There is nothing stopping you from buying up land as many people have in the past and building a community that practices a different set of governance (Usually cults have done this). The Amish decided to opt-out and their decision is not only respected but their right to do so is protected.
It seems to me Larimer is asking for the allocation of land for an independent country recognized internationally. The same thing Malcolm X asked for. What precedent does that set that whenever a percentage of the population don't agree on rules they can fracture off? If it were that easy everybody would do it.
It suggests this group rather not actively engage in the current democratic process to lobby their interests. It simply would be easier if they were able to secede.
Excerpts
Fighting to prevent independence is like a parent locking their teenager in the house where they are compelled to do chores and work the family business.
Followed by
It is like northern states refusing to let southern states govern themselves. It is like slave owners refusing to let people work for others.
Are you suggesting that the North should not have meddled in the South as long as slaves don't understand the concept of independence, freedom, and democratic voting? Surely it couldn't be a refusal of not letting slaves work for other nicer slave masters.
True democracy implements a process that harnesses the wisdom of the crowd and systematically protects against the need for global knowledge to make sound independent decisions.
Why would a democracy need to protect against variables that could very well change consensus? If there are varying degrees of knowledge that is not a failure. Independent people choose where their interest lies. Controlling for those variables is terrible for security and an accurate representation of democracy in my opinion.
All governmental power comes from the consent of the population, even a population suffering under the worst imaginable dictator. The challenge of getting out from under a corrupt dictator or party system is coordinating enough people to reach a new consensus on who should be in power.
You went on to explain the fallacy;
As governments become increasingly tyrannically corrupt, operating against the interest of society, they institute measures designed to hinder the population from reaching a new consensus.
I lol'd.
The first act of independence is to reach out to your neighbor and invite them to join you in creating a new social contract and a new process for reaching consensus.
I lol'd again. I think it'll be more effective to find like-minded individuals rather than burdening your neighbors with eccentricity. The truth is nobody knows what you're going on about here. Explain this "New social contract", and why you're seeking pacts.
This “end justifies the means” philosophy is the seed of genocide and totalitarian utopianism.
Followed by
From a certain perspective, there is no “end”, there is only the means, so the means better justify themselves. To have an “end” assumes that no additional laws or changes are needed. An “end” implies denying others the path to power. It implies an end to democracy.
The perversion of this is strong from a certain perspective. The means you are hoping for is the end result of your actions. This is continuous for all parties. To suggest this is evidence against independence is a step away from conspirator acquisitions.
Other observations
The chapters end stronger than they begin. I'm guessing you write a summary of the tidbits you've picked up over the years to build your argument. Then attempt to provide examples or citations to lead up to it. The source of any new philosophical thinking doesn't have to do that.
Also, the chapters have ended with a list. That could have enough material to be stand-alone books. Thus so far I'm not reading a book, but outlines and arguments for some books.
It is certainly true that each chapter could be expanded into a book on its own.
I state that the end doesn't justify the means, but apparently you believe it does.
I state that tyranny aims to prevent people from changing the system and reaching a new consensus and you "LOL", presumably you believe that a tyranny would never attempt to prevent people from replacing the system.
You suggest that people should not have the right to secede, which implies a desire to dominate. I get it, under the law of the jungle if you can prevent others from "leaving" you make yourself stronger. But I argue that you no longer have democracy or consent of the governed.
I LOL because there is a conundrum that seems to be unanswered.
Seceding to do what, and preventing what? You will just be setting up another order that people will find fault in. I'd have expected your experience of getting chased away several times to resonate with this.
The experiment is the current system. It will remain so until implosion. There are several apparatuses you stated that could be work on to improve it. You don't want to tackle individual components of the whole. You rather be nuclear.