Abraham Lincoln, seen by some as a tyrant and imperial mass murderer (as viewed by those who defend the rights of states to protect the institution of slavery.....hardly a vision of voluntary membership), expressed the ancient concept of ur-democracy*, in contradiction to the proto-fascist* ideology of state/oligarchic rule by force: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise constitutional right of amending it, OR their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
"Government of, for, and by the people........"
The movement to replace the coercive fascist state, ruled by "those who have made fortunes," and those "who own the country" is fueled by this revolutionary concept of democracy, rule by consent and the right to undo the state and replace it.
It can be replaced either by a democratic Republic which relies not on wealth or coercion but "consent of the governed." Or it can be broken up into new units with common interests, such as bio-regions or even city states.
The problem of coercion remains as the minority will not be happy with the will of the majority, but the democratic solution is inviolable rights (including the right of revolution) so that the minority may become the majority. Thus coercion is tamed by the opportunity to peacefully amend the status quo...and if that is not possible, secede. Those unhappy with the compromise of majority rule (with inviolable rights of the minority, including the right to become the majority) can leave. Or stay to change the situation they dislike. Given equality, majority rule, with innate rights, is inevitable. Those who reject it can move to regions where minority rule prevails.
Do I then embrace the right of the slave states to secede from the Union in the mid 19th Century? I do not because their reason was not to end coercion but to insure it in the form of slavery. The right to revolt is based on the will of the people for self-determination, and any such pretense to revolt in order to enslave or exploit others violates the first principle of human rights, that they are universal. I therefore embrace states rights, municipal rights, regional rights to liberate and create universal rights and equality but oppose, by this same principle, any efforts to use "state's rights" to protect the rights of plutocrats, to enslave, to persecute.
Against the Deep State, which operates outside the law of not only the US but international law, I propose "Deep Democracy", a tradition that goes back to the origins of the human community, based on equality, sharing, and non-violent solidarity. Can we actually dismantle the US evil empire and its Deep State? I give as an example the 10 totalitarian nations in Eastern Europe which, based on democratic non-violent resistance, overthrew all of them within one year. Deep Democracy adopts as its revolutionary mantra a chant heard worldwide, wherever people come together to oppose oppression: " The People United will never be Defeated." This is the truth of Deep Democracy, a belief that solidarity and the kind of love that Dr. King taught (not affection but the deeper love of renouncing violence and embracing our fellow revolutionaries as brothers and sisters):
"Only love is powerful enough to defeat hatred."
*[Note: Ur means earliest or original, as in urtext. Ur-democracy describes in a way we can relate to the earliest human communities which were egalitarian and sharing. Proto has a similar meaning, early or in its primitive form, or just first, as in prototype.]