Exercising Your Right to Say No

American history has always experienced a tug-of-war between centralized power and local autonomy. From the Whiskey Rebellion to modern debates about federal regulations, Americans have historically pushed back against Washington’s restrictive reach.

Few scholars have studied this issue as deeply as Jason Sorens. Sorens is a Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), former director of the Center for Ethics in Society at St. Anselm College, and the author of the book Secessionism: Identity, Interest, and Strategy. His work spans fiscal federalism, zoning, secession, and the interplay of local and national freedoms.

Sorens puts it bluntly: “Ultimately, legitimate government must be based on consent of the governed. If a group of people want to set up their own government, and they aren’t going to violate rights … then the existing government should let them go.”

Government Overreach and the Trap of Federal Money

One of the most subtle forms of federal overreach comes through funding. Washington offers states money, but always with strings. Medicaid expansion, federal education grants, and transportation funds all come tied to federal dictates.

Sorens suggests a surprising strategy: “States can push to opt out of federal programs, such as Social Security. While this would require federal legislation, states that are eager to do it can make it worthwhile for Congress to accept their demands by, essentially, offering money.”

This isn’t theoretical. Some states refused Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. They sacrificed federal dollars to maintain more independence in healthcare policy.

A Practical Takeaway

You don’t run a state, but the principle applies in everyday life: be wary of benefits that come with hidden obligations. Whether in business, family, or government, autonomy is worth more than “free money” that limits your choices.

Ask yourself: Where am I trading independence for short-term gain? Would I be freer, even happier, if I declined?

Land Use: Who Decides What You Build?

Perhaps the most tangible form of overreach appears in land-use regulation. Zoning laws dictate not just how we use land, but who can afford to live where. Sorens’ New Hampshire Zoning Atlas makes the invisible visible.

He notes:

“Zoning regulations limit private property rights. Some kind of legal regulation of private land use can be justified whenever those uses create significant harms to others, but the way zoning does it – through central planning of land use – makes little sense.”

For young families, zoning often means higher housing costs. For communities, it means less diversity and innovation. For property owners, it means limits on the freedom to use what they own.

Covenant Communities: A Better Way

Sorens offers a practical alternative: “One way to try to ‘unbundle zoning’ is to allow large, contiguous areas of private land to become self-governing cities, with the right to set their own rules regarding land use and the right to opt out of local property taxes for services they provide internally.”

Imagine a neighborhood where residents agree voluntarily on rules—like a condo association, but bigger. Such communities already exist in embryonic form, from homeowner associations to co-housing cooperatives. The key is consent, not imposition.

Examples of Practical Experimentation

• Attending local zoning board meetings. Asking, Are these rules preventing genuine harm, or are they enforcing conformity?
• Exploring collective ownership models. Considering whether you and your neighbors can create agreements that serve you better than city hall dictates?
• If you’re younger, advocating for zoning reform. More flexible land use means more affordable homes.

Secession and Autonomy: The Right to Leave

The word “secession” makes many Americans nervous, as it often conjures up thoughts of the Civil War. But Sorens reminds us that the principle runs deeper: “When secession becomes a moral necessity is when the government is trying to force you to do wrong.”

He cites William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist who argued for Northern secession because the Union required Northerners to return escaped slaves. Sometimes, staying in union means becoming complicit in injustice.

Modern Examples

From Brexit to Catalonia, modern secessionist movements show that the desire to exit distant authority is alive and well. Even in the U.S., talk of Texit (Texas independence) or Calexit (California independence) pops up periodically.

Most movements fail, but Sorens notes their strategic value: “Regions with secessionist parties tend to receive more autonomy than regions without such parties.”

The threat of exit pressures governments to be more responsive. In this sense, secession isn’t chaos; it’s leverage.

Examples of Practical Experimentation

Think in terms of exit in your own life:

• At work, do you have the freedom to leave if conditions become oppressive? If not, how can you create it?
• In communities, are you building structures where participation is voluntary—where people can walk away if leadership betrays trust?

Autonomy begins with the option to say no.

Federalism: The Middle Ground and Why States Matter

Centralization may promise efficiency, but it smothers local knowledge. Sorens’ research in Freedom in the 50 States reveals:

“When it comes to policies that the states themselves control … freedom has grown in the U.S. over the last 25 years. Congress’ interventions have almost always reduced freedom.”

This suggests a practical path: limit Congress to its original constitutional powers, expand state control, and let diversity flourish.

The Local Tyranny Problem

But what about when local governments restrict liberty more than Washington does? Sorens acknowledges this paradox: “The ultimate local autonomy is the self-government of the individual human being. But when local governments violate rights, higher-level governments should intervene to preempt the injustice.”

Courts, then, serve as referees. They should step in when property rights or individual freedoms are trampled, but otherwise let states and communities experiment.

Examples of Practical Experimentation

• Paying attention to both federal and local policies. Local governments can be as intrusive as federal ones.
• Supporting federalism not as blind “states’ rights,” but as a way to maximize your ability to choose the community that reflects your values.
• Considering “voting with your feet”: if your state or city becomes too restrictive, relocating is itself a form of peaceful resistance.

Technology and the Future of Decentralization

Technology is creating unprecedented opportunities for autonomy. Blockchain-based currencies like Bitcoin challenge centralized control of money.

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) allow people to self-organize globally without hierarchy. Estonia’s e-residency program lets individuals worldwide access government services digitally.

These innovations embody Sorens’ principle that governance should rest on consent. Communities no longer need to be territorial; they can be digital, borderless, and voluntary.

Examples of Practical Experimentation

• Experimenting with decentralized technologies, not just as speculation, but as tools for freedom.
• Joining or forming online communities that operate on voluntary, consent-based principles.
• Recognizing that autonomy in the 21st century may be as much about your digital life as your geographic one.

Consent Is the Core

At the root of every debate about federal overreach, land use, or secession lies one principle: consent. Government without consent is not governance but domination. Sorens reminds us that freedom depends on keeping exit, choice, and voluntary association alive.

• The practical challenge for us is to take this principle seriously:
• Question the strings attached to benefits.
• Advocate for land-use reform and property rights.
• Keep the possibility of exit alive in your work, your community, and your political life.
• Use technology to build voluntary, borderless associations.

The federal government will always seek to expand, but freedom grows from below — from the courage of individuals and communities to say, “We will govern ourselves.”