h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Confederation Referenda
A lot of the world's countries of today are just the ceasefire lines of yesterday's wars. People should be allowed to opt out of their countries. | |
I'll concede at the very outset that this is just never going to happen; I just think it should.
The concrete? ... er ... specific ... details have been working well for years, now, in the Republics of Autonomia (no, no really, I waive the poetry prize) and are as follows: every state of these countries
has the right of confederation, but Autonomia has a conflicting right of union.
Last year Oddballia had yet another confederation referendum, and yet again managed to gain the required 70% of the vote (the high percentage being ia. protection against dead hands ruling from the grave), and finally the federation voters failed to raise the 55% required to sustain a refusal of cecession in this case (higher federation percentages being needed to trump greater support for secession). Oddballia is now in a confederal union with Autonomia, and if the secessionists can sustain enthusiasm for their cause, perhaps in 50 years time they'll have taken another step in that direction. However next year the unionists in Oddballia will be asking for a return to how things were, and it's quite possible that the wisdom of the longer view proves to be in their favour.
So whatever function is devised to give effect to this, has two variables instead of one, and provides lots of time for mature reflection / no "quick political profits".
The principle is that the locals own their region. It doesn't belong to central government; it doesn't belong to the neighboring government; it belongs to the people living there. Freedom of association is the only basis for cobbling the little territories of the world together, and if you build in the kinds of protection against stupidity like the above, the principle would become implementable.
Payoff? Less war and rumours of war.
[link]
|
| |
This already exists; look up "the sovereignty of the people". |
|
| |
Unfortunately neighbouring states tend to organise themselves on the principle of "the sovereignty of the crown", and then the wearer of the crown asks his loyal subjects to invade and annexe the unruly neighbour. |
|
| |
It's a bit like the green anarchists with their autonomous independent self-suficient villages. It's all lovely until the industrial military regime arrives and enslaves them all. |
|
| |
Although this sounds like a good idea, the issue is that
there are a lot of nosy, controlling people trying to tell
others what to do, run their lives, and tax the hell out of
them. When you create your own tiny country and have
your own laws that are different than the laws of the bigger
country you're in, the nosy, controlling people in that bigger
country will go to war with you. One time in 1860, the
entire southern half of the US tried to make their own rules
and hundreds of thousands of people died in that war.
Although the people with Brexit and Calexit and Texit
movements would agree with your philosophy. Currently,
the size of territories is determined by the idea that each
territory has to be large enough to have a big enough army
to defend itself from every other territory. Look at the
current Ukraine, Crimea, and Taiwan issues for more
details. |
|
| |
There are a number of areas like Transnistria which are nominally independent republics, albeit recognized by no one, and often beholden to Russia, which is using Transnistria as a military staging ground. |
|
| |
Russell makes the great point, autonomy and
people's desire for independence is the bane of the
land grabbing totalitarian's dreams of glory. Great
idea, but how do you do it? War has always been
the way to proceed although as Russ points out,
you could look at Brexit, but that was a loose
economic federation, they didn't have to deal with
a king, emperor, overlord, premier etc. They were
also a country that had autonomous rule for
thousands of years and never really gave that up. |
|
| |
I think a way to proceed might be to study the
force at work within man to want control over
their fellow man. If tyranny is a disease, which I
think it is, treat it like one by first off studying it. |
|
| |
You could say Putin is a good guy to study, but I'd
stick with somebody who's actually been successful
at conquering land. |
|
| |
Nobody ever came close to Genghis Khan, could
start with him. |
|
| |