alt Hacker NewsSo your argument is what, Ukraine should be absorbed because the majority of the Ukraine-Russia say so since the majority of the people in that land mass say they're the same country and the majority also agree that country is Russia?
I don't want to live in your dystopia. Your thesis is that if you just submit to the mob, violence could be less. I don't find life to be an optimization for the least amount of confrontation. I have never asserted my view of the world guarantees no violence. What you have to offer is basically well the same thing could happen to you as happened to a fraction of these other people unless of course you just submit to the mob.
>I do wonder where you imagine all these disenfranchised minorities are expected to flee to in order to establish their independent nations or whatever. There’s literally no unclaimed land on the Earth aside from Antarctica. Are they going to flee to extremely undesirable areas of their existing country and hope the originating country just doesn’t care enough to stop them? Are they going to break away and take valuable land with them? It’s pretty rare for part of a nation to successfully cleave itself away. Even more rare without a massive war.
This applies to any form of human organization. If every country were feudal you could argue democracy was broken because there is no place where it could be practiced. It's not an argument that's able to contrast the two. No matter what form of governance or organization people lived under, their option is either to wait for a vacuum to emerge, to engage in war, to negotiate, or to simply ignore those in power and wait to see what happens -- the same would apply in forming monopolistic democracy where it doesn't exist.
No. My argument there was that your “we can just live like a bunch of independent tribes and no one will interfere if we can get rid of that pesky central government” idea is not based in reality. We have seen that underpowered minority groups get frequently trampled.
I certainly did not say minorities should submit to the mob. You keep inventing imaginary things for me to have said.
> you could argue democracy was broken because there is no place where it could be practiced
No. You literally said “the minority can run away and work under their own system of law” and I am asking you where in your hypothetical system they could run to.
At the end of the day, you’re falling for a variant of the politician’s fallacy. You see the flaws in the current systems of government and say, okay, here’s a different system. We should do that. But the fact that your system is different does not mean it is better.
Indeed your system is basically just the existing system scaled down with all the same exact issues that arise because humans are flawed, just without the benefit of the centuries of work that have been put into trying to make our current governmental bodies manageable.
You don’t actually get to live your own rules just because you hypothetically run away to live with roughly like-minded folks. The first thing any community does is establish rules. They establish rules that everyone in the community has to follow because the alternative is that bad actors prey on the group from the inside. They restrict your freedoms to protect the group. And sometimes their rules go too far for one person and not far enough for another. Welcome to government. And sure, you can hypothetically go find unclaimed land and start a one man nation with only your rules. Good luck with that.
Your “minorities banding together” to counter the majority is also just more centralized government. Welcome to the European Union. Welcome to these United States. Again, you’ve discovered an existing (reasonably) successful form of government.
Bluntly, you confuse your naïveté with insight. Just because ideas are new to you or you do not recognize them in the existent world does not mean they are actually new.
Could we hypothetically dissolve the USA and create a bunch of feudal territories that operate independently but trade with each other and establish a set of rules for interacting and courts that manage disputes? Sure. We call those things states.