When in Rome ...

[Augustus]

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

The main problem with many areas of governance is not corruption, incompetence or malevolence but scale.

Devolving power to the lowest possible level would help in many areas from democratic legitimacy, reducing political alienation, reduced tribalism, greater accountability, smaller problems that are easier to solve, etc.

People always ask the wrong question: "How can we make everyone like and respect each other?" rather than the more realistic "How can we ensure peaceful coexistence in a world full of people we neither like nor respect?"

In general we don't care too much about 'the other' unless we fear the other messing with our way of life - good fences make for good neighbours.

You might be interested in this

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence


We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country. In Switzerland, mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution guarantee either sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and that region has experienced significant violent conflict, leading to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

 

[sun rise]

You don't understand. Your child can't wrong another child because they'd be in different parts of the country.

And how would that be enforced especially if someone changed their mind?

Mind you, I have sometimes wanted to take all wingnuts and forcibly relocate them to one location. So I have a certain liking for the idea but it's just that, an unworkable thought.

 

[Heyo]

And how would that be enforced especially if someone changed their mind?

Mind you, I have sometimes wanted to take all wingnuts and forcibly relocate them to one location. So I have a certain liking for the idea but it's just that, an unworkable thought.

The study cited by @Augustus likes to differ.
The problem is that you first have to agree upon the idea and have a police to prevent overreach.
Changing ones mind isn't a problem. Pack your bags and move. It also wouldn't be a problem to visit the other side. Just as you can visit any other country as long as you respect their laws.

 

[Piculet]

Just as you can visit any other country as long as you respect their laws

Yes. I think that's enough. I think what you're developing is a kind of contagious phobia.

 

[February-Saturday]

Won't work, because of the level of technology and the effects of that. Now if you kill of a huge amount of humans, change the human psychology and get the rest to live in anarchistic self-sufficient agrarian village, then yes.
Good idea, wrong species and level of technology.

Technically, you would have to do this to make any political system universal. We still have Saudi Arabia and North Korea, and the US is a corporate oligarchy now rather than a democratic republic. In many ways, even basic democracy would require this, because we always end up more authoritarian with time.

The reality is that political ideology doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether you as an individual have the power to defend whatever rights you decide to take for yourself, or whether you're relying on a system that's eventually going to grow more and more authoritarian until it collapses due to consolidating too much power in a single place.

That's why no system can ever be universal, and why literally no political system will ever "work." There will always be division among those in power who want more power for themselves. All of these political ideologies you're seeing are just different factions vying for power. It's not even about what values you hold. It's about whoever is in power that you're benefiting by supporting their ideology, mistaking it for your own.

The values themselves don't matter. They're interchangeable, they're just frameworks. They're part of a bigger system.

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is going to be a philosophical, political and religious debate as all those areas could potentially benefit from the idea.

The idea is called federalism, you may have heard about it. In politics it is already implemented, although badly. Many democratic countries are also republics. The general structure is that local affairs should be handled local, state affairs are handled by the state and common affairs are handled by the country. A good setup in theory only handled badly in praxis, partly because there is discord about what are local, state and federal affairs.

But that is only one fault. The other is human laziness. People don't like to move so there are conflicts everywhere and no real diversity.
The same goes for religious/moral groups. Some have managed to stick their claims and hold on to them. But most are in the diaspora and cause dissonance.

And then there is the fear of losing power. The will to dominate is strong in some humans. They would never allow a group that was once under their thumb to have their own community.

Wouldn't it be a good idea, whenever there is a seemingly unsolvable conflict, to just draw a line in the sand and have one set of rules on this side and another on the other side?

It'll never work, since everyone would decide that it's the OTHERS who should move to the 'other side of the line'.

 

[Tambourine]

@Augustus
@Heyo
Are you actually argueing that the solution to ethnic conflict is ethnic segregation?

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus
@Heyo
Are you actually argueing that the solution to ethnic conflict is ethnic segregation?

Decentralisation and political autonomy.

 

[Tambourine]

Decentralisation and political autonomy.

But a form of political autonomy that segregates people from different political units, apparently?

 

[Augustus]

But a form of political autonomy that segregates people from different political units, apparently?

As an example, if you has a region with 1 million people, 500,000 in a city and 500,000 in small towns and rural areas.

The city dwellers are very liberal, and the rural folk are staunch conservatives. Sometimes the liberals win power, and gloat at the losers who stew in their resentment for 4 years at the liberal policies, then the conservatives win and return the favour and try to undo the last 4 years.

I think it would be better for the city to constitute one polity and the rural areas a different polity. I believe that would make people happier, politics less tribal and relationships less driven by resent.

Do you really find this to be such a horrendous proposition?

 

[Heyo]

As an example, if you has a region with 1 million people, 500,000 in a city and 500,000 in small towns and rural areas.

The city dwellers are very liberal, and the rural folk are staunch conservatives. Sometimes the liberals win power, and gloat at the losers who stew in their resentment for 4 years at the liberal policies, then the conservatives win and return the favour and try to undo the last 4 years.

I think it would be better for the city to constitute one polity and the rural areas a different polity. I believe that would make people happier, politics less tribal and relationships less driven by resent.

Do you really find this to be such a horrendous proposition?

Exactly. The only problem is to agree upon what has to be regulated on the highest level (human rights, economy?, education?) and how far down certain things can be handed.
In my experience many things could be better handled on a lower level.

 

[Augustus]

Exactly. The only problem is to agree upon what has to be regulated on the highest level (human rights, economy?, education?) and how far down certain things can be handed.
In my experience many things could be better handled on a lower level.

Education should certainly be local imo.

National level is for defence and foreign policy, macroeconomics, basic constitutional factors and not much else.

 

[Tambourine]

As an example, if you has a region with 1 million people, 500,000 in a city and 500,000 in small towns and rural areas.

The city dwellers are very liberal, and the rural folk are staunch conservatives. Sometimes the liberals win power, and gloat at the losers who stew in their resentment for 4 years at the liberal policies, then the conservatives win and return the favour and try to undo the last 4 years.

I think it would be better for the city to constitute one polity and the rural areas a different polity. I believe that would make people happier, politics less tribal and relationships less driven by resent.

Do you really find this to be such a horrendous proposition?

What about the thousands of rural workers who travel to the city to work every day? What about the city dwellers who move to the countryside, to escape what they see as the negatives of urbanization? Where should they be allowed to belong to? Whose policies should they be allowed to influence?

 

[Tambourine]

Exactly. The only problem is to agree upon what has to be regulated on the highest level (human rights, economy?, education?) and how far down certain things can be handed.
In my experience many things could be better handled on a lower level.

Do you believe that people are prejudiced because they are in too close contact with other people who are different?

 

[Heyo]

Do you believe that people are prejudiced because they are in too close contact with other people who are different?

No. Prejudice is usually the result of lack of contact. Conflict is the result of too close contact (with different or like minded people).

 

[Tambourine]

No. Prejudice is usually the result of lack of contact. Conflict is the result of too close contact (with different or like minded people).

So conflict can't result from prejudice, then?

 

[Heyo]

So conflict can't result from prejudice, then?

It can but usually it doesn't as long as the distance is kept. The conflict emerges only when one group invades (or seemingly invades) on the others turf (a.k.a. too close contact).

 

[Tambourine]

It can but usually it doesn't as long as the distance is kept. The conflict emerges only when one group invades (or seemingly invades) on the others turf (a.k.a. too close contact).

So ethnic conflict would, in fact, be solved by ethnic segregation after all.

 

[Augustus]

What about the thousands of rural workers who travel to the city to work every day? What about the city dwellers who move to the countryside, to escape what they see as the negatives of urbanization?

They can do this as normal of course.

Where should they be allowed to belong to? Whose policies should they be allowed to influence?

You vote where you live like normal



What are your main objections to much greater power being exercised at the local level? Do you really find Switzerland to be such a terrible, 'segrigationist' place?

 

[Heyo]

So ethnic conflict would, in fact, be solved by ethnic segregation after all.

Conflict between incompatible morals or styles of living. It can be bound to ethnicity but it rarely is. The question is if someone from a different ethnicity is willing to adapt the culture of the place they move to.
Example: a northern culture is used to work through the day with only a short rest around noon. A southern culture is used to have a siesta in the middle of the day and work in the evening instead. Both make sense in the climate they originated. When both live together the northerners disturb the siesta of the southerners and the southerners disturb the night of the northerners.
This kind of conflict can be avoided by either segregation or adaptation.