[bzbarsky]

I think there's an interesting argument to be had here about the point at which "self-determination" becomes "colonialism". A group that is sufficiently geographically diffuse does not have a right to self-determination (ipso facto, because it's not the majority anywhere). Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism".

Is that an accurate representation of your views? If not, what is?

[luffapi]

> Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism".

If that relocation involves creating a new state or otherwise taking power over the region, then yes that’s my definition of colonialism.

[bzbarsky]

> If that relocation involves creating a new state

Creating a new state is what the right to self-determination is all about, yes.

It sounds like we have some fundamental disagreements on definitions here, though I would be interested in your take about how you feel the right to self-determination can be meaningfully exercised by a geographically dispersed group, if at all.

[luffapi]

I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region.

I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a modern day open border policy for the US (where I’m a citizen).

[bzbarsky]

I don't see how open immigration solves the self-determination problem, unless the premise is that:

1) You allow open immigration.

2) You then allow a democratic vote, including by the new immigrants, to partition the existing state (the essence of self-determination).

which comes back to pretty much my original premise: that the only way for a geographically dispersed population to have self-determination is to be able to move to a single area where they can them democratically vote to have that area become autonomous or sovereign...

Needless to say, the pre-existing population of that area would likely not perceive this process favorably.

The other option I see is to posit that in modern democracies the principle of self-determination is unnecessary. I suspect a number of people in Catalonia and Scotland would disagree...

[luffapi]

> The other option I see is to posit that in modern democracies the principle of self-determination is unnecessary.

For geographically dispersed people? Yes, sovereignty is impossible and undesirable as you’d have to take it from the locals wherever you were getting the land from.

For people living under an oppressive regime (or one they view that way), it’s a different story. They are the locals and thus should have a government that fits the local population.

You can’t create sovereignty out of thin air. You have to take it from someone if you’re going to give it to someone else. All the land on this planet has been accounted for for some time now.

[joelbluminator]

Well Jews lived under oppressive regimes wouldn't you agree? It couldn't get much more oppressive. So their only choice was to try settle a place completely empty or where the locals would greet them. Zionism considered this btw, all plans failed. There weren't that many options.