@michelm @evan (sorry! i had to get the kid.) i think i should have done a better job to emphasize that the mischief is in the word “right”. a right means something one can enforce, even over the objections of others. in the context of national self-determination, it is often taken to legitimize violent “resistance”. 1/

@michelm @evan that self-perceived communities have aspirations to a kind of self-determination strikes me as fine and normal, and i agree that there are many situations where it would be better if states would recognize those aspirations, which might range from recognizing as official a minority language, to intrastate devolution and autonomy, to formal secession as a separate state. 2/

in reply to self

@michelm @evan but i think elevating thise aspirations into a “right” is beyond counterproductive. (i think it has proven in practice quite vicious.) states thrive when they are functional, and communities that consider themselves disrespected and repressed are a drag for everyone. as long as it’s clear that any changes will be by mutual consent rather than unilateral, i think there’s tremendous scope for human communities to work stuff out. 3/

in reply to self

@michelm @evan but as soon as there’s a right, there’s a threat to try to enforce some rearrangement without mutual consent. and i think that poisons the whole exercise. ironically i think it ends up harming the minority communities it is meant to empower most, because while it legitimates “resistance”, they then bear the brunt of much more serious kinds of oppression than might otherwise obtain if the more powerful majority did not fear unilateral secession and potential violence. 4/

in reply to self

@michelm @evan i don’t mean to diminish the real trade-off here. taking the “right” off the table does mean the more powerful group can more easily choose to simply ignore and repress the claims of a less powerful group. but my (perhaps mistaken!) judgment is that overall, the cost of polarization and violence that claiming a “right” engenders outweighs the good that might come from the stronger negotiating position a perceived right might enable. /fin

in reply to self