Can I just ignore the rules of the country I live in on the sole basis of "a group of people sharing an identity" being people that are me?
The argument is worth having, because trying to secede part of a country unilaterally by "legal" means gets down to this absurdities.
One question that someone who wants to create a new country out of another, to put it that way, must ask should be "what can I give in return?"
If this is going to become a negotation, hopefully, then both parties must understand that there has to be compromises, and have to find common ground. Not just "this is my right because I say so", nor "this can't be because I say so".
Platitudes on liberty and justice and words that essential mean nothing lead us nowhere.
In fact, mistrust that people can decide things for themselves and that localism leads to the best outcome for them is the hallmark of centralism and bureaucrats. Things we don't need more of.
The issue isn't simple and I'm positive that this has nothing to do with "human rights" or "democracy" or else. It's much, much more complex than that.
People are more peaceful as neighbors than flat mates.
Because it underlines the fallacy of appealing to an alleged right to cecede.
> Its not made in good faith and obviously nobody is discussing one-person states.
Strawman, and one that's based on a disingenuous premise. It's quite clear that the argument is on whether to draw the line of when a minority has your so called right to cecede. You already admit that your so called right to cecede is absurd and ridiculous if only one person wants out. How about two? Do you believe a couple has the right to cecede? How about two dozen persons? Two hundred? Do you believe a couple of appartment blocks have the right to cecede? Or is the whole idea and concept entirely absurd, and only pointed out as a self-serving tautology?
It really isn't, as it purposely excludes portions of the electorate that don't support the idea.
- a different language? - a well defined culture? - a political composition which differs greatly to that the rest of the country? (check the representation of the PP and PSOE)
If you are interested in discussing the reality of the Spanish situation, it is pretty clear where this right of seccesion might want to get exercised (Basque Country, Galicia...) and for sound, historical reasons.
We clearly don't.
I was just listing regions that might have historical reasons and even parties with strong independent ideals, versus a group of friends wanting to separate from Spain for the sake of the argument.
At the end of the day no matter how many people it is you are still taking away resources from the state (land, tax revenue, etc.) and creating issues with political consequences, border control, and all sorts of things.
How many people does it take to make such actions "acceptable"?
Further, allowing groups of people to just break away from the state and create their own systems, creates a threat to the state from all non-indigenous populations.
Why allow any immigration if newcomers are just going to be able to take your resources and land whenever they feel like it?
I agree that in a perfect world none of this would matter, but currently I don't see a scenario where any state would allow this, regardless of the number of people involved.
The point that I am making is that regardless of my personal feelings, I don't see any state giving up sovereignty in exchange for nothing.
I've generally either agreed with or appreciated your points in this thread, but this one triggered a reflex in me which has been honed by Brexit.
If we're talking about what a population of people want, we should qualify it with a reference to which poll we are citing. Otherwise it sounds far too agenda-y.