[toyg]

It was as much for that as to avoid a repeat of the squabbling over territories that had caused the war in the first place. The main point was that territories should not be assigned just because this or that army controls it (which would have inevitably degenerated again, as it did), but because the population wishes to be so.

The failure of Versailles to fairly apply that rule (and later, of Germany and USSR to respect it, before and after WWII) resulted in tragic events that I hope nobody wants to see repeated. The model for a modern approach should be the Chzech/Slovakia divorce, surely, rather than e.g. Chechenya?

[afarrell]

Do I think that a velvet divorce is better than a civil war? Yes. Do I think that “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must” is a detestable thing? Of course. But wanting a thing doesn’t make it so.

Examining the question “can Hong Kong meaningfully vote for independence?” inherently requires examining the power relationships involved: Who has power? How do they view themselves? What incentives constrain/impel their actions?

[toyg]

> wanting a thing doesn’t make it so.

If enough people want it, yes it does.

> inherently requires examining the power relationships

Indeed, but no country exists in a vacuum, not even a superpower like China. The world has a role to play.

[afarrell]

> If enough people want it, yes it does.

No it doesn't. Thats like saying that if you spend enough money, you can produce housing. That is only true in a world where money allows you to incentivize and organize a group of people to assemble housing. (A significant chunk of HN does not live in that world)

Likewise, if enough people want a thing, that allows some group of them to build a power structure which is able to incentivize some of those people to make the thing happen. But it is a fundamental law that in order to do any kind of work over time, you need to exert power.