Those folks should look at how the USA treats their own citizens, not to mention all their many many territories who have no voting rights. Not even counting military bases.
But on the other hand I do want to see more democratic borders. The people should select sovereignty, and not negotiated between countries that own them or take them by war.
I don't see Denmark and the US as having authority to make deals about who Greenland selects as a government. They should be able to democratically assign themselves to any entity. And be able to democratically un-assign themselves.
But I add an asterisk. The threshold can't be 50%. It has to be higher. Why? Because if it is only 50% it is equivalent to plain democracy with no constitutional limits. The point is to help countries (a geographic term) try more forms of government and have forms of government compete for market share by merit. But if the way merit is imposed on these government makes all government defacto 50% majority limitless mob-rule then there is no exploration.
So I think if 66% of a country (geography) was to align itself to a different state power, then at least that's an improvement on current statism.
Bonus, it becomes impossible to have war over territory if we get governments to accept this standard.
Point being that anytime a people votes to join a different country I see it as a positive because its a step in that direction. This is why I view the Donbas and Crimea transfers as semi-valid. Was it the 66% I'm a fan of? Maybe not. Were they very secure elections? Maybe not. But it's still a pattern that can be improved on.
"Democratic borders" is a wonderful idea - but it's a fantasy.
We don't even have uncorrupt-democracy with "representative leaders" much less direct-democracy.
I wouldn't trust any negotiations by the ruling class with their special interests.
Obviously war is bad too. The only war I endorse is resistance against the corrupt matrix of rigged systems that serve the ruling class. This would entail uncensored alternatives, solutions, and tradeoffs towards a more even playing field. How? I have no clue.
As far as the people of Greenland, how many were even born there? And in 100 years they'll all be dead and who ever is left will have to deal with whatever is done today. The world is a better place without borders, but also without the deep state, greed, propaganda, poverty, stupidity, and violence.
I like your thinking - more than 50%. 100% consensus is unrealistic. Why not aim higher to 75% or 80% to compel folks to aim towards a greater consensus?
Before COVID and Trudeau I might have thought it nice if they joined Canada. That just illustrates how ephemeral, trendy, and stupid geopolitics are - and why we must decentralize all the things. And keep trying to improve.
Otherwise regions might vote every four years to be part of a different nation.
True. Even if they want closer ties to the US they can do that while maintaining independence. Look at the EU. A lot of European countries wanted closer ties with each other, they thought giving up some independence was the way to do it, and now they are stuck in the EU.
Yeah, if anything we should be breaking up the US.
Log in
Those folks should look at how the USA treats their own citizens, not to mention all their many many territories who have no voting rights. Not even counting military bases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States
Things can always get worse. The USA is not in the business of helping people.
We need to decentralize all the things - including empires and nation states.
The Canada + Greenland + USA is one of 10 regional powers The Club Of Rome wants to control the world with.
Fuck ruling class think tanks.
But on the other hand I do want to see more democratic borders. The people should select sovereignty, and not negotiated between countries that own them or take them by war.
I don't see Denmark and the US as having authority to make deals about who Greenland selects as a government. They should be able to democratically assign themselves to any entity. And be able to democratically un-assign themselves.
But I add an asterisk. The threshold can't be 50%. It has to be higher. Why? Because if it is only 50% it is equivalent to plain democracy with no constitutional limits. The point is to help countries (a geographic term) try more forms of government and have forms of government compete for market share by merit. But if the way merit is imposed on these government makes all government defacto 50% majority limitless mob-rule then there is no exploration.
So I think if 66% of a country (geography) was to align itself to a different state power, then at least that's an improvement on current statism.
Bonus, it becomes impossible to have war over territory if we get governments to accept this standard.
Point being that anytime a people votes to join a different country I see it as a positive because its a step in that direction. This is why I view the Donbas and Crimea transfers as semi-valid. Was it the 66% I'm a fan of? Maybe not. Were they very secure elections? Maybe not. But it's still a pattern that can be improved on.
"Democratic borders" is a wonderful idea - but it's a fantasy.
We don't even have uncorrupt-democracy with "representative leaders" much less direct-democracy.
I wouldn't trust any negotiations by the ruling class with their special interests.
Obviously war is bad too. The only war I endorse is resistance against the corrupt matrix of rigged systems that serve the ruling class. This would entail uncensored alternatives, solutions, and tradeoffs towards a more even playing field. How? I have no clue.
As far as the people of Greenland, how many were even born there? And in 100 years they'll all be dead and who ever is left will have to deal with whatever is done today. The world is a better place without borders, but also without the deep state, greed, propaganda, poverty, stupidity, and violence.
I like your thinking - more than 50%. 100% consensus is unrealistic. Why not aim higher to 75% or 80% to compel folks to aim towards a greater consensus?
Before COVID and Trudeau I might have thought it nice if they joined Canada. That just illustrates how ephemeral, trendy, and stupid geopolitics are - and why we must decentralize all the things. And keep trying to improve.
Otherwise regions might vote every four years to be part of a different nation.
True. Even if they want closer ties to the US they can do that while maintaining independence. Look at the EU. A lot of European countries wanted closer ties with each other, they thought giving up some independence was the way to do it, and now they are stuck in the EU.
Yeah, if anything we should be breaking up the US.