There is a mechanism for dealing with this: secession.
A lot of violence will be saved if we start agreeing to amicable divorces.
I don't expect us to do that, so, sadly, I expect a lot of violence.
A lot of violence will be saved if we start agreeing to amicable divorces.
I don't expect us to do that, so, sadly, I expect a lot of violence.
Because they won't want to. Breaking down at that granular level would be too inconvenient to be worth it, even before considering the issues you laid out yourself.
If we all believe that government requires consent of the governed, why structurally require violence to achieve that state? That's the status quo you're defending.
Meta: this is how a real-life slippery slope argument and response should go. It's not a fallacy, it's just not always applicable, just like every other concept
Territories with strong social identity would maintain political union, territories with weak social identity and severe political disagreements would split. As much as is possible, no one is ruled by people they hate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
We are taught this is impossible because the ruling class, who favors ever more centralization, wishes that to be so.
Tribalism worked well for humans for roughly 350,000 years. Then we idiots come along and think that we've got a better way that is already showing its weaknesses and strain after just a couple of thousand years. Really? Maybe, just maybe our ancestors were on to something and there's something we can learn from them. No that couldn't possibly be it.
Because of course, today's society is completely free of violence now that we've eliminated tribalism?
I think the topic has been successfully in the mind of college educated people, so any mention of it immediately brings to mind both slavery and, somewhat amusingly, fascism.
It is too bad. As I said above, I see it as the best way to avoid violence.