3 ms·
I believe there is an argument here worth discussing. At the end of the day no matter how many people it is you are still taking away resources from the state
by kjaftaedi 7y ago
I believe there is an argument here worth discussing.
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.
- atomi 7y agoMany countries were formed by exactly this method - including the US. If you were seriously living under tyranny I suspect you'd have a different opinion.
- kjaftaedi 7y agoI'm of the opinion that more of this would be a good thing. 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.