In the West, if we try to hang on to any national identity as a white, you're pretty much labelled racist and discriminated against for being white.
Western nations allowing a heavy leftist agenda seem to want to destroy any past national identity and create a new one.
For example, it used to be 'True Blue Australia', now it's 'Multicultural Australia'.

But it's true that people do tend to want to have a national identity.
If you denied this as a basic fact, then none of the wars across the planet would make much sense.

Self-determination, seems pretty hypocritical in some cases.

Like if Crimea votes itself out of a Ukraine, after it's government was overthrown in a US sponsored takedown and the new government says that Russian citizens are banned from using the Russian language and they vote to break off and align with Russia, then that's not allowed.
Russia 'stole' Crimea, this is the crap we have to listen to.

But if Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US have geopolitical aims and they start a war in Syria, arming proxies to overthrow the Assad government, deliberately letting ISIS take over the country; US claiming they were fighting ISIS for years when really they were more or less supporting them against the Assad government, and use the Kurds to take the land back from ISIS, both Sunni aligned - Effectively 'Stealing a part of Assad's Syria' for geopolitical aims... stopping Shia influence, then this self-determination is 'good' apparently, and all we hear is the 'evil' dictator Assad.

I'm not going along with this, even if Kurds do have a valid case to have their own small independent state.
I'd support Assad and Russia bombing them back to their previous borders.
The US and Israel are funding rebuilding programs so Kurdistan will effectively be a US / Israeli puppet state;
They will install missile defense / try to stop Iranian influence by establishing Kurdistan.
- And it's all just stepping stones to their removal of Assad.

Democracy's a different word for Imperialism, when someone won't do what the US wants.

While it's very easy indeed to agree in principle with the evocations of the Author! Practicalities stand in the way of ethentically based independence!

What is required, I believe, is the affirmation of all those things we share! Common humanity, the pursuit of happiness and a willingness toward peaceful cohabitation, on just one single planet!

All that separates all humans is just 6 degrees of difference and ingrained/inculcated cultural diversity! That's all! Nothing else!

Lifeboat earth! Demands a mindset that confirms, united we stand, divided we fall!

Essentially all that the Kurd or any other euthenic community needs is regional Autonomy! And with it the alleged missing, self determination! And just allow time, patience and goodwill to add anything currently, ostensibly missing?

Far worse outcomes can so easily prevail! e.g., The Palestinian/Israeli conflict or never ever ending story!

That said, I have long believed/held, behind everyone of these self determination/independence moves, is a strongman looking to promote his/her own power/position/privilege/prestige?
Alan B.

I agree with this article, but I go further:

Everyone ought to be free not to be ruled by others against their will.
Forcing oneself or one's group upon others is violence, thus unacceptable.

Now it is sad that at present, people like the Kurds and Catalonians need to mimic their oppressors in forming states themselves, just in order to be free. This should not be required, but if that's indeed what they want, then that's what they should have: smaller states that are based on some commonality are better than conglomerate states that impose themselves arbitrarily over a diverse population.

Regarding this commonality, I do not recommend forming societies around ethnic lines. Of course I would not tell others who to associate themselves with, of course I will respect their choices, but I think it's unhealthy for people to sort themselves out along ethnic lines. Language and cultural commonality are a better glue, but better still is religion, where people join together to create a purer environment that supports their particular religious practices and keeps out interfering distractions.

(and even if you seem to lack religion, you still value other things, so why not stick with people who share the same values and aspirations?)

States need to be small enough so they do not oppress the other people who live nearby.

States need to be small enough, so the can become the entree for large expanding nations, ruled by power mad, inflexible dictators! Da?

Who can expand by just taking very small bites out of notionally independent nations, or if small enough? Swallow them whole like oysters kilpatrick? It's time consuming, but only if you're not playing the long game! Da?
Alan B.

Democracy relies on making no distinctions among citizens on the basis of their race, religion, culture or any other defining characteristic except their willingness to obey the laws and participate in community affairs.

Self-determination assumes the a people united by some characteristic such as race, religion, ethnicity, culture should form a state based on that characteristic. Those within the boundary of the state who do not share that characteristic are liable to become second-class citizens.

Self-determination is a form of ethnic nationalism which is incompatible with a non-discriminatory democracy.

The name of the game is regime change.

Arm, fund and organise civil right groups to start simultaneous protests.
All you need is one group to attack government forces and kill a heap of them ruthlessly.
From there you can expect a harder response towards putting down the civil unrest and government will act less disciminitory towards citizens to protect it's own people.
Expect more civilian casualties, details of which must be broadcast by media to enrage the people rebelling further.
The nation's leader will move to shut down media and the West demonises the shutdown of media and portrays the person as a dictator.

Leader is removed from Government, puppet government installed.
Puppet Government takes huge 'redevelopment' loans, becomes beholden to new foreign interests. Geopolitical situation changed.
Now officially a part of 'US National Interests'

To the victors go the spoils, whether that be running drugs, human and sex trafficking or organ harvesting to increase ROI on war costs during the war; or oil or gas contracts (for $US of course), oil pipline right of ways, resource grabs, government infrastructure and civil contracts, communications, etc, all debts fall on the shoulders of the poor citizen who's lucky enough to survive the war.

And that is how the Team America does democracy.
- You'd think people would've figured the game out by now.

Can they really not see it?

Catalans who exercised the right of self-determination in their own country are subject to EU arrest warrants issued by Spain. What a good move by Britain to have the wit to give the EU its marching orders. The British Tories are leaving heel marks trying to stay in the EU while pretending to be "negotiating" the democratically demanded exit with the Brussels cabal. Yet public disapproval of the EU is even stronger in France than in Britain, and is as strong as Britain's in Germany.

The aim of the CIA in setting up the EU after the war was to stem the tide of democratisation following the defeat of the Nazi Third Reich. The trick was to ensure that democratic rule in each of the 27 member countries was subject the direction and veto of a Commission consisting of officials foreign to each one of them.

For the origin of the EU, Google "European Union CIA".

Dear Alan,

I appreciate your fear.

Should we kill innocent others so that we don't get killed?
Should we torture innocent others so that we don't get tortured?
Should we control the life of others so that our own life is not controlled?

In principle we should not.
In practice, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
At least can we agree that it's not something to be proud of?

Then, can't we find better means of self-defence?
Perhaps defence alliances between independent groups of free people?

Fear can make us throw the baby with the bath-water!

---

Dear David,

Indeed, it is not right to treat minorities badly.
This is why, if we are going to have states at all, then they should be small, so that no one is included in our territory against their will. Better still, have societies that are not necessarily organised along contiguous territories.

Self-determination in a positive sense might sound bad, but is probably the only way to prevent situations where a majority that consists of people I have nothing in common with and no desire to live among, can dictate laws that deprive me of whatever is most dear to me, including my integrity and moral principles. Compared with that, a democracy is only a nice-to-have.

Ethnicity/race is a poor choice of commonality, but who is to dictate which commonalities to accept or reject?

Current states already assume [stupidly] that people are united by the characteristic of living in a particular large territory: it can't get much worse than that.

Ahhh....what a web we weave...white is black (in the dark) and black is not so bad (in the light)
It's a shame that the idealistic values of youth are cut short by the political pragmatism of confusion through blatant denial.
Carthage was the beginning and things have gone downhill ever since.
We know what is 'right' and we also know 'right' is never profitable
We know there's no such thing as equality, but we claim it to be so nevertheless.
We can't correct because there's nothing wrong....and we make accusations against those who seemingly have it together.
When the masses have no idea, then ideas are the last thing sought by the masses.
Social advances are never a product of democratic process....and they're not about to change now

Dear Yuyutsu,

How do you keep states small? Is there an empire that didn't start out as a small state? How do you keep people from converting from one religion to another or from belief to disbelief and vice versa? How do you keep people from being attracted to other individuals of different ethnic or religious backgrounds?

Small enclaves united by some unity are not stable.

Dear David,

Each enclave should have some constitution (or equivalent) which is initially agreed by all members. This should include any exit conditions, which could possibly be different from one enclave to another: nothing wrong about it because it's all consensual.

Some enclaves may allow people to leave the enclave WITH their land.
Some may condition this on keeping the enclave's territory contiguous.
Others may sell their land when leaving, or perhaps automatically sell it for a pre-fixed price to the enclave itself.
All as stipulated by the respective constitutions.

Same for inviting in new people to which members are attracted: whatever is freely agreed on, so it shall be.

Dynamic territorial changes need not be a problem so long as they are not too frequent, they can even be healthy. People don't tend to change their religion every year.

I also expect it to be common for adjacent enclaves to have [freely-entered] agreements on rights-of-passage, common infrastructure, common currency, common defence and the like: most enclaves will not be total islands.

Yuyutsu wrote:

"Each enclave should have some constitution (or equivalent) which is initially agreed by all members."

The requirement for complete unanimity makes your scheme impossible from the beginning.

A non-discriminatory democracy has no laws or other state-sanctioned practices which disadvangate individuals on the basis of race or bodily chracteristics. Additionally it has no laws or other state-sanctioned practices which limit the cultural or ideological beliefs of individuals. It does, however, use its powers to protect all citizens from harassment to enforce the requirements of any religion on those who choose not to follow them.

At Cronulla beach a few years ago, the state neglected to protect beachgoers from harassment when their beach attire offended the theocratic requirements of Moslems. Decent Australians were obliged to use their fists and boots to provide the resistance that the state withheld because of its politicians' undemocratic commitment to multiculturalism. For this these decent Australians were reviled by the Dhimmified news media.

Dear David,

If you design a good constitution which takes into account the needs, wishes and freedoms of real people, then 99% of the people will accept it. After some further negotiations and refinements, this good constitution will turn into an excellent constitution and by then 99.9% will accept it.

The remaining 0.1% will just create holes in the state's territory - and that's fine. If they are not on a border and ever want to move in and out, then they will need to negotiate rights of passage. In all probability this should not prove difficult, otherwise, they may rather sell their properties and move to a neighbouring state which suits their values better.

The very presence of options nearby, will create competition, where states always try to create the best possible constitutions, respect freedoms more and improve their laws to attract good citizens.

Dear Yutsutsu,

A Constitution by itself means nothing. The Soviet Union had and the Republic of China has wonderful constitutions.

At the moment the Constitution of the United States is under threat from its president.

The Federalist Papers are the background to the US Constitution. According to them Trump's actions in putting the armed forces of the US into action were illegal. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution did not want the president to have the powers of a king. Unlike an absolute monarch the president can only command the armed forces in the prosecution of a military action if the armed forces have been called out previously. The only circumstances which call out the armed forces are a Declaration of War which article 2 section 8 of the Constitution delegates to Congress, an attack on the US, a domestic insurrection or the fulfilment of a treaty obligation. The various war powers acts by which Congress has empowered the president to decide on war are illegal. Congress cannot delegate that power any more than the Supreme Court can delegate the president or Congress to decide cases. Federalist Paper # 74 written by Alexander Hamilton states: "The President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militias of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.” "when called into the actual service" is italicized. Trump should be impeached for malfeasance since he used his power improperly, but the reality is that he won't be impeached.

Constitutions are fine only if there are working mechanisms to support them.

Dear David,

We can only do our best.

So try to have the mechanisms to support your constitution, to whatever extent you can.
It might not be perfect, but at least you did no harm and did not force yourself and your laws on anyone - that's the minimum, that's decency, the rest is a bonus.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We both want decency. Let's leave it there.