Can you enlighten me on this matter? I seem to be “out of my depth” with these issues.
If there is a country where 50% of the territory is occupied by 51% of the population, who would unanimously vote for the independence of their 50% if they were asked in a national referendum. The country is a corporation of the country’s citizens, and the land is the corporation’s property. Is it stipulated anywhere in the constitutions of any country that the people have such a right? Let’s assume the remaining 49% living on the other half are making their lives miserable and mismanaging their joint savings, and they want to live in a separate country, consisting only of them.
Now let’s complicate the issue. The 51% of the population actually live not on 50% of the territory, but on 10% of that 50%, yet they still want the whole 50%. Why not? They are the majority, aren’t they? Why should they consider the interests of the minority on the other half?
Why do patriots love the land they did not invest in, just as their fathers and grandfathers didn’t, when all they did was live there? I understand when someone invested in a bridge and then there is a possibility of losing it, then one can raise the issue of compensation; but when no one built the bridge, why is there an attachment to the land into which not a penny was invested by the people living on it?







