4 ms·

No, the people of CA have surrendered their ability to make these decisions to the State in exchange for certain benefits. The people in CA cannot, for instanc

No, the people of CA have surrendered their ability to make these decisions to the State in exchange for certain benefits. The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. I'm not making a value judgement on that claim -- just pointing out that it's no different than if two or more countries were to subvert their provinces/cities/communities/etc's wishes and allow for freedom of movement in pursuit of some benefit.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. Right, part of the pact with OK is that they have ceded some rights to a common political body. Nothing you've said contradicts what I said.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  OK, then we agree. The fact that CA (which has more in common with London, UK than Oklahoma City) has freedom of movement only with the latter has nothing to do with their decision as a community and everything to do with decisions made long ago and social contracts they were born into. My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth. Historical agreements can be changed if there is political will, but of course inertia is important. To put my answer to your question "Why should people in CA let people from OK move there?" in a different way, people from CA should allow people from OK to move there, and vice versa, because free movement between the two areas is a show of good faith. It tells the people of OK that the people of CA trust them not to exploit that privilege for their own gain, which is of course something that not everyone can be trusted not to do. Shows of good faith of that kind help both sides trust the other side more, to the point where they are comfortable with, for example, pooling military resources, which are absolutely critical to maintaining the future existence of both groups and are more effective when pooled. Might the people of CA have enough in common with the people of London that each side could trust the other not to exploit their generosity? Maybe, but it takes quite a while for that trust to build.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

>The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. Right, part of the pact with OK is that they have ceded some rights to a common political body. Nothing you've said contradicts what I said.

streb-lo 7y ago
OK, then we agree. The fact that CA (which has more in common with London, UK than Oklahoma City) has freedom of movement only with the latter has nothing to do with their decision as a community and everything to do with decisions made long ago and social contracts they were born into. My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth. Historical agreements can be changed if there is political will, but of course inertia is important. To put my answer to your question "Why should people in CA let people from OK move there?" in a different way, people from CA should allow people from OK to move there, and vice versa, because free movement between the two areas is a show of good faith. It tells the people of OK that the people of CA trust them not to exploit that privilege for their own gain, which is of course something that not everyone can be trusted not to do. Shows of good faith of that kind help both sides trust the other side more, to the point where they are comfortable with, for example, pooling military resources, which are absolutely critical to maintaining the future existence of both groups and are more effective when pooled. Might the people of CA have enough in common with the people of London that each side could trust the other not to exploit their generosity? Maybe, but it takes quite a while for that trust to build.