On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:15:08PM +0100, Knapp wrote:
> Perhaps not in fiction but there is a historical precedence for the
> argument. It is the Catholics VS the Lutherans. Should you be
> baptised at birth or after the age of reason of your own free will?

I suppose that would have mattered more (and been closer to the
"subject of a nation state" discussion) back when the church had a lot
more power to enforce penalties against those it considered to be
members.

> Rebellion assumes leadership and I would say dictatorship to rebel
> against.

There is no need for dictatorship.  Somewhat democratic nations have
had rebellions and internal wars.

> If a democratic "nation" (planet, empire whatever). Buys a planet because
> the citizen of the sold planet voted for the sale then I don't see that
> there is much to rebell against even many generation later. They might
> decide that they don't like the new government but then they could just
> vote to secede.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  It is entirely possible that secession requires
a supermajority in a national vote, for example, and not just a
majority in that particular region.

> I really don't see how a democratic nation could take over a
> resistant group of people without violating there own ideas of self
> government.

Not getting too bogged down in details, but it has happened, indeed
quite recently, and almost certainly will happen again many times in
the future.

> The only way I could see justifying such a takeover would be to
> postulate that the other people were inferior and not citizens and
> therefore had no rights.

There are many other justifications.  E.g. postulate that they need
saving from their current government, which isn't a democracy.  If it
inconveniently is some varient of democracy, then say that it's not a
*real* democracy.  Maybe call it a police action, claiming that their
actions as a nation have led to the suspension of such rights until
suitable corrections have been applied.  The list goes on.

- Tim