Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
If german Bavaria wanted to become a part of Austria, held a referndum without allowance of Berlin and then even voted 90 percent to leave, this means nothing.
|
It would mean EVERYTHING. You imply that a syndicate of any sort has the right to subjugate people to its rulership and that the so owned subjects have no right not wanting to be governed by it. But that is a violation of two of the three essential human rights. Its also a fallback into the formal reality of the darkest medieval, and ancient times.
Any law, or constituion, that rejects a local, regional population the right to freely decide whether it wants to continue a partnership or not, is invalid in itslf, by itself.
Becasue if people living in a reigon cannot voluntarily deicde ton it,, but get forced to stay in, they are beign woned then, and de facto are seen as the other'S property.
We call that slave owning.
If -bavaria thus would vote in a referendum to leave the federal republic system, then other federal states - namely those who get passively subsidized by Bavaria so far - have no claim for the bavarians that they are not allowed to leave. Any according law and constitutional paragraph must be seen as invalid in itself and as a violation of human rights.
Partnership, alliances, must be voluntarily. Where they are not, it is about conquest, dictatorship, and subjugation. Every partnership, every alliance in principle can be cancelled, no matter whether any rule or treaty say that cancellation is explcitly ruled out. Such a regulation is just the self-justification of the supressor, the slave owner.
Thats what nationalists and career potlicians f today and the eU do not understand, becasue it psut the very fundament fotheir powers and priviliges into question. It would make potlicians fear the people and force them to follow the demands of the people. But i insist on that givenrments must be afraid of the people, and must see themseves as the servants of the people, not the people being servants to the government. People'S interest go first. Parties' interests should not just go last, but should not even exist, for parties themselves should not even exist. Becasuewhere thexy exist, they do so at the explicit cost of putting their interests above that of the people.
No man and no poeple lives for the sake of another man or another people, and no man and no people has any right to demand that other men or other people live for the sake of the first. Its not just about humand rights, most profound basic human rights, about freedom - but also dignity.