On The Epilogue of "Tipping Point"

 

Several people have remarked to me regarding the ending of "Tipping Point" that they didn't understand what happened (or what was happening) in the Epilogue, chapter 28, specifically with reference to the interactions between Lulu Pleasance and Bobbie Farquhar and between Florence Persky and Steven Miller.  This is as I intended.  You have to write your own ending for this tale.  That's not simply 'fair', it's necessary — for no one can predict the outcome of a civil war in all its ramifications.

As of that point in the story, the U.S. Constitution has been amended to make clear that secession is within the powers of the states, and several states have taken advantage of that power to separate themselves from what was once the United States of America.  Deliberately left unsaid is whether or not any of the naturally expected changes (the contraction of the federal government chief among them) have acted to draw any of those states back into the "united States" (as the Declaration of Independence itself identifies them), or whether or not there now exists two (or more) independent polities within that territory.  What do you think?  That is the most important question left unanswered as Tipping Point closes:  how do you think this has all worked out — if it has worked out.

What is the significance of the crossbow pins and emblems?  Have the erstwhile "freedom fighters" been able to come out into the open or are those pins the equivalent of "a secret handshake" among people whose involvement can only be known among others in the same situation?  What do you think?

Those pins are all of a single design it seems, yet are differentiated by small, perhaps barely noticeable decorations.  What's the significance of a diamond chip as opposed to an amethyst chip?  Those who can read the language of flags may sometimes be able to say something on the order of "that cruiser is Brazilian and is commanded by a Rear Admiral; the crew is on shore leave, and there's no smoking allowed just now because they're transferring ammunition".  The decorations on the pins are of such a nature, but to catalog the meaning of each is not relevant to the story.  If you really need an explanation, you could just as easily make one up yourself.

Some have scoffed at the notion that states ought to be able to secede at will, yet the 10th amendment seems to leave such powers with the states, and the notion of secession vs. permanence of the union is nowhere else addressed; the 10th amendment would seem to be the controlling law.  Viewed from a strictly rational vantage, one has to wonder what benefit is gained by forcing some region or people to remain united after changes to their worldview have separated them (philosophically) from their former neighbors.  If we are to treat each other as comrades, does that not require us to wish each other the best of futures?  And, if our neighbor thinks their best future is attained by independence, should we not wish them well and let them go?

As well, to think that such questions can be adequately answered by civil war has proven to be wishful thinking of the highest order.  The first U.S. Civil (sic) War is still being fought — it did not end at Appomattox; only the shooting and the killing ended there.  Would any sane person suggest that we could finally get a definitive answer by doing it all again, but this time bigger and better?  I don't believe that, and I hope no one else does, either.

"But, wait..."  I hear someone say,  "that implies that regions could secede from nations, counties secede from states, neighborhoods secede from cities, and neighbors secede from neighborhoods!  That's madness!"

That is, in fact, what such an attitude implies.  It's the ultimate "freedom of association" that we are free to associate or to disassociate down to the individual person.  That is, after all, what marriage and divorce are, is it not?  We call it 'independence' as if it is something different when practiced by nations, but it is precisely the same thing.  Why can we not go to court and get a decree separating ourselves?  Why, in fact, might we need a court?  The answer is that, in a rational society, political dissociation ought to be as simple as "I'm done here!"  Imagine how much bloodshed might have been prevented over the eons by simply understanding that keeping a polity — or a person — captive harms both sides?

Forced unity is, in fact, a way to maintain one’s power — nothing more.  The king, the duke, the earl always has the wherewithal to force the peasants to stay where they are.  There’s no need to negotiate when armed soldiers are ready to enforce the will of those at the top of the food chain, yet... if the duke can get the peasants to do the work voluntarily — because they see it as a win-win situation — the duke no longer needs to maintain so large an army and so needs less revenue, making the peasants better off.  ‘Coercion’ always has a cost associated even if we can’t see it.  So it is with nations.  So it is with all of us. 

Some have specifically asked about 'Steven Miller', the man who rents a car from Hertz rental agent Florence Persky in the very last paragraph of Chapter 28, and as in several other cases, I have declined to further identify him.

Like the character 'V' from "V For Vendetta", Steven Miller is 'Everyman'.  He is you and me and your cousin Bob and the neighbor you don't particularly like.  In the grand scheme of things, he is nobody, and therefore he is everybody, and he made the events of "Tipping Point" possible.