 | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Not sure what you mean by immune in this context. Some democratic nations have resisted mightily. The US Civil War was at least partly about separatism. Other democratic nations have not resisted (Czechoslovakia seems to have peacefully (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) True, but the US was hardly even partly democratic at the time (except on paper)! Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Less democratic, yes. Less free (at least in the free states anyway)? Arguable. (Free society == democratic society) == false (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Sure the free states were more free, if you were a white male (and a landowner, IIRC). But in terms of personally restrictive laws, I suppose you're correct. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: Whoops! That's the one I meant to delete. Dave! (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: La belle province
|
| (...) Well, in a democracy the people get to self-determine already - so one can argue about the use of having two states in similar circumstances taking similar decisions, when this only works to double institutions. The more states there are, the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
