Quoting from within your self-quoted reply:<p><i>Does that address your question?</i><p>Perfectly, thank you. It seems we&#x27;re rather in agreement: play along, or don&#x27;t — where &quot;don&#x27;t&quot; isn&#x27;t just a matter of not paying taxes, but still using the roads, or whatever. I&#x27;m, personally, not interested in going back and forth on the notion or merits of internal secession, or &quot;home rule&quot; or any of that; that&#x27;s orthogonal to the point I was trying to make, and with which you appear to concur.<p>EDIT: But, for the record, I agree that it should, in principle, be possible. In practice, I think it&#x27;s a far bigger deal than pretty much anyone who&#x27;d want to undertake it is probably prepared for, and that&#x27;s likely part of why it&#x27;s <i>not</i> allowed. Vanishingly few people have the resources to start their own <i>wholly self-sufficient</i> society.<p>Further, I submit that many, if not most, of the people who <i>would</i> want to would be doing so in order to perpetuate some prejudice or other. Witness the neo-Nazi group that tried to take over a town in North Dakota as an existence proof of the phenomenon. That&#x27;s the kind of thing you&#x27;d <i>explicitly</i> have to allow, if you pursue the concept to fruition.