David Hobby wrote: > >> The current system of overpowerful nation states and weak UNO and weak >> cities is skewed, but I can't see a viable alternative. > > No, the majority does not have the right to impose its > rules on minorities. That's one of the rules the "Organization > of Democratic States" (ODS) will impose as it works its way around > the globe overthrowing dictators... > :-)
But that is _always_ the danger with democracies. And this danger is as old as Plato, who used this argument to defend the aristocracy. > O.K., we have to back up a bit from that, or there aren't > any countries in my mythical ODS at all! For instance, the USA is > rare among western democracies for having separation of church and > state, but even it doesn't enforce it well. > ??? AFAIK, every other western nation has it too. Brazil certainly has it, except that the Roman Catholic Church has too much power because it's a rich organization. > We might manage to > get together enough countries for the ODS if we set the bar lower, > insisting that the majority could not make private, consensual > behavior of the minorities illegal. : ) (But don't wear those > headscarves to school!) > Headscarves? Is this the chador? > As for the other issue, it's certainly not fair for > a country to send a bunch of its people into another country, > have them become the majority there, and then make that region > rejoin their native country. (Yes, I'm a Texan...) > Most territorial growth of Brazil during the XIX century was with this system. The biggest catch was Acre, who became an independent country shortly before joining Brazil. [and now Acre is dangerously close to becoming a narcocracy :-/ ] > A good rule might be that only people who were born in > a place could vote on which country it would join. > But this is what happened to Kosovo, who was a serbian zone, until the albanians grew in number and began oppressing them. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
