David Hobby wrote: > > I'd even propose that partition into separate countries > should be the default for groups with separate languages.
Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say 'language' do you mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump their chests and ask for a separate nation? > Separate countries created this way could always decide to > merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. Yeah right. You create different states, make random politicians heads of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you expect them to give that up to merge...? > Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > keep them together. What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > I do agree with you, the people involved should get to > decide. I'm not sure what the best mechanism for this > would be. One could start by giving every linguistically > (or however) distinct group its own homeland, ideally > a place where they made up most of the population. > (I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > assuming they'd want a homeland.) Who will 'give' these homelands? And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in distinct localities? > Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > are, we get to negotiate their borders. Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > Some people > would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's > homeland, one could either move there, or stay where > one was as a minority. Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that choice in 1947. > There would have to be some > carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair > compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go > to their homeland, or wherever. This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in practice. New nations are free to form their own constitutions, they are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and how well these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when the nation is in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government funds are tied up in protective and relief measures. New nations are also free to go to war with each other and then make it close to impossible for their new enemy's citizens to enter their nation. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
