#which naturally is fully automated luxury gay space democratic socialism

[tanadrin]

It sounds like you likely side against the protesters in New Caledonia who were apparently protesting about France giving people who moved there recently the right to vote in local elections. (i.e. the native minority doesn't want the colonizers to have the right to vote)

I probably would! If you live somewhere, and pay taxes there, and use the public services and utilities there, you should have full political rights. That policy seems like an overcorrection for historical injustice--e.g., the French not granting Muslims voting rights in North Africa.

And there are other awkward questions you could pose for my open-borders-and-free-citizenship stance--like the fact that the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was driven in part by immigrants of American background who felt excluded from representation (but who in turn wanted to exclude Asian immigrants from representation), or how small countries that suddenly find themselves in an advantageous economic position often find their demographics rapidly changing (Qatar, Hawaii in the early 20th century).

But the alternative--the whole hog of blood-and-soil nationalism, with a bit of anti-colonial lipstick--seems pretty bad to me. People move around. Places change. Cultures change. We can and should do everything in our power to ensure those changes and that movement is the result of, like, free individual choice, and not war or violent seizure of land or systems of brutal economic exploitation. And sometimes despite those changes, the things people love about their traditional cultures can persist--especially now, in a world that pays much more attention to the rights of (for example) minority language speakers than it used to.

But the desire for the world to remain culturally, linguistically, and economically static is basically reactionary. I mean really, it's the aesthetic heart of reaction. It's also an absurdity. Even perfectly isolated societies can change in dramatic ways. And, of course, very often "tradition" is a cudgel simply wielded in the service of entrenching a different kind of elite power: I am no more supportive of the Hawaiian monarchy, one born of bloody conquest by an imperialistic dynasty, than I am of the British; the British one just happened to be more historically successful, but the underlying principles are the same. Cf. also the way land tenure works in American Samoa, a system that is billed as keeping land in native hands--which it does, by institutionalizing the colonial system of blood quantum and being explicitly racist, and simply serving to prop up a different set of elites (in this case, traditional tribal elites rather than colonial ones).

I think the only way you can really escape the trap of reaction and nationalism is to refuse to play the game in the first place--to put the primacy of your bond to your fellow human beings, regardless of culture or race or origin, and thus inherent political equality (and solidarity) above other considerations. Tribalism, pillarization, byzantine ethnicity-based power-sharing arrangements, special rules for land tenure or voting rights--all these have a nasty way of turning into new forms of exploitation, of someone figuring out how to do the economic and political arbitrage at someone else's expense. The central insight of 1789 was correct here: the only solution is the universal equality of all human beings. The trick is to carry that insight through to its logical conclusion.