>No

OK so you're simply in bad faith lying about the consequences of what you're arguing for. You argument is the one for Taiwan to be absorbed by China and for Ukraine to be absorbed by Russia.

>I certainly did not say minorities should submit to the mob. You keep inventing imaginary things for me to have said.

Yes that is what you have said. That's what democracy is, if the majority say the minority have to do something they must submit. Otherwise the means of government are used against them, usually that's violence, and usually if that is resisted it ends up being escalated until the most violent forms of violence are used. Of course this can still happen under other forms of law, but in democracy it's actually considered legitimate and the populace is actually conned into thinking that's true and they've collectively done it to themselves. Under monopolistic democracy, if you can't make the minority submit to the vote of the majority you simply have a failed democracy.

>>“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.

Strawman. And under any form of governance, interference still ends up happening.

>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.

Under polycentric law you don't physically run away. You run away into a new system of law.

>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.

I'm naïve but apparently up until now you still haven't figured out that you don't need to claim a new territory to adopt a new system of law in a polycentric law society. The fact you don't understand you didn't have to physically run away means you had no idea what you were even arguing against. And your naïveté about the application of democracy means you have no idea what you were even arguing for. You are stuck in the notion of a geographic monopoly of government, which is why you assumed if not democracy the only other option is a dictatorship while ignoring historically that hasn't even been universally true let alone in theory.

> You’re just a white supremacist. You want a white dictator

I want to close with these thoughts here. You're not arguing in good faith. You have, before any of this, publicly declared I'm a white supremacist who wants a white dictator. Maybe because I disagreed with your politics or maybe because I disagreed with an innocent wife with a child in her arms being sniped by an agent of the state after we the people thought the husband cut a barrel 1/4" shorter than what the glorious people think the right to bear arms includes and he didn't show up on time for the thing he was actually found innocent of (tellingly, you were very concerned about Weaver's possibility of being a racist but not at all about the state murdering a wife). I've been incredibly, incredibly kind and understanding despite the vitriol you've said about me. So please understand when I won't entertain this bad faith further.