All of those. The impracticality of the Sovereign Nation of Elm Street or the Most Serene Republic of Mr. Brown's House aside, in principle there's nothing wrong with either of those as far as I can see.

You would first off have to ask your self if in Texas's case are you are happy with it's government and if it fails did you have the right to opt back in .

The trouble with MR khan is he seems to think it can be looked at on with a case by case basis with the criteria of will it be better for the people and less oppressive . the trouble with that it deals in unknowns and what the  future may bring and is subjective and alludes to some one making the decision on behalf of the people who want to secede , rather than the secessionists themselves negotiating it with the rest of the union or internationally  with whom ever your decision has a meaningful impact.

As an entity, a country has a primary responsibility to be a place that ALL of its citizens want to stay in. While this is almost never completely possible, it should always be a place that it is better to stay in than be apart from.

If Texas or any other state/city/entity thinks that they can do better alone (whether I believe they can or not is not important) then the Country is doing something wrong.

Even if that's so... that still completely proves my point.

You don't give a shit about property rights, therefore you don't consider the restriction of property rights a valid reason for leaving a country.  This stance is based soley on your own hangups and opinions.

I am cuirous though what you think about the big movement to leave that you left out.  Scotland leaving the UK.

I'd be against it, largely because it makes no sense and posts no real gains for the Scots. Belgium is the more interesting and complicated question.

And its not that i don't give a shit about property rights, it's just that i feel capitalism has helped put those rights outside the bonds of usefulness and into the realm of counter-productivity. Intellectual property rightsholders have too much leeway in the current system, and people have sums of money far too great for them to make any positive use out of.

It's all about utility at the end of the day.

I agree it is a fine principle , the trouble is as you mentioned the further down you go the more impractical it gets . still it can be said the more centrist  a government is the more out of touch it becomes,  I remember reading a book many years ago probably from my best friend  it was talking about where the Russian revolution went wrong and the concurrence  was it happened when the local village councils or what ever the Russian equivalent is called handed  over power to Moscow , i know it's not about secession but it shows how even the left of politics see  trouble in a centralised system so it can work both ways.

I think the problem in America and some other places isn't whether secession is good bad or ugly but the fact it is unlawful  and when that happens it makes it hard to negotiate for a peaceful solution and only raises tension.

Having talked about secession being unlawful is that really the case today legally? ,  In Lincon's case didn't he threaten to imprison the  head of the supreme court for alluding to the fact that it may not be unlawful at all . , so has the constitution been amended since , or was  the head of the supreme court wrong or is it still going along on the fact that Lincon disallowed any legal challenge .

Except

A) Those laws aren't capitalist laws... they're statist laws.  Capitalist laws would suggest the majority of them shouldn't exist because it distorts the marketplace.  Allowing only the minium amount required to keep markets running regularly.

B) Utility wise, again it would make sense for Texas to leave.  Texas has historically been a huge net payer to the government, believes it's having it's rights infringed by the government and has an economy so big it'd be one of the richest countries in the world.   Nor do i particularly see any evidence that there would be a huge backslide in other rights in regards to texas.  So economically and freedom wise they would advance.

Palestine on the otherhand would advance freedoms wise, but regress greatly on the economic front, since most palestinian buisness is kind of held up by Israel.  The areas that get ceeded back to Palestine?  They'd collapse from middle class to poor in no time flat.

Scotland... would be a less extreme version of the same.  They would advance quite a bit "human rights" wise compaired to the rest of the UK.  While economically hurt.

Your approach doesn't really seem utlitarian so much as again, your personal preference based more on personal opinion then specific data.

As i've said, ten years since Lawrence v Texas and the schoolbook silliness, as well as Texas' refusal to abide by the federal government's mandates on access to women's health care.

Also, i thought Texas was a net taker too, though perhaps not, due to the oil.

Why would that make a difference? I dont think oil is state owned in Texas.

A) Lawrence vs Texas likely happened before you were born... seems silly to still consider it.   The only silliness with the textbooks was that the media mentioned it... as that happens in a number of states.  California and New York do the same thing.

and as for women's healthcare... again that's your personal judgement clouding your view. 

There really isn't any solid factual abortion evidence on when a person is a human or not or any of that.

Hence, from a utilitarian factual point of view, you wouldn't have any real reasons.

B) They are a net taker currently... or actually were, i think they are a giver again, it was only during the heavy stimulus years.  Pretty much every state is because of the gigantic deficit the federal government is running.    I mean check the 2010 numbers.

Texas is one of the few givers, out of what... 13 states I think i count?

Really it shows how bad our deficit problem is.... since those states aren't big money makers like NY and Cali anymore.

Historically however they haven't been.