Can those of you who are vehemently opposed to the very idea that a group of people might wish to break away from an existing nation-state and govern themselves please explain to me why you feel this way? That shit is truly baffling to me.

Also, if your nation has ever seceded from another nation and you are not actively working towards rejoining that nation, please explain why you are not a filthy hypocrite.

Thank you.

I agree with the OP, if a region wants to be a country it should be able to, given it has popular backing from the people.

But I guess people are against it because of traditional values, as it could split a country up. For example, If Catalonia's referendum on independence in 2014 proves that they want to be independent then other regions will likely follow. I don't see it as a bad thing, but others probably do.

You must fight a war and win to be able to break away. If you lose then you must stay.  Sounds to me like you are a sore loser

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=145133&page=1

and I am a sore winner.

came

I don't think anyone in his right mind would be anti-secessionist in general. People are usually opposed to specific secessions because of the circumstances involved and not to the idea of countries separating from each other as a whole.

-As I explained in my thread about philosophies, I am a utilitarian at heart, as such believing in an ends-based morality, and an Aristotelian, believing that said end should be human happiness. As such, I tend to believe that Freedom is not an end or a thing that is good in and of itself, but rather certain liberal-democratic policies (freedom of thought and plurality of political opinion in governance, leaving aside the matter of property which is where i break harshly with the libertarian set) have proven to enhance human wellbeing and happiness, and to that end they are good things

But there is a time and a place for everything. From a perspective of human welfare, American independence is neither here nor there; as Canada demonstrated that home-rule was only 90 years away, and America under the colonies was really not all that badly off (the British treated us much better than the Spanish did to their American colonies, or subjects of Imperial Russia, for instance), although American independence did allow for radical experiments in the matter of rapid expansion of the franchise and in modern government free of monarchy, so ultimately American independence did good things for the world and was a worthwhile endeavor (aside from enabling the expansion of the slave trade 30 years longer than if we had stayed under British rule)

To that end, secession is only worthwhile when the people that could take power are going to be better than the people who have power. Secession in America is synonymous with lost-cause Dixie conservatism, and secessionists look back to 19th century views on women, property, the environment, and religious freedom, thereby meaning that they should not be allowed out lest they enact these things. Similarly, Algeria does not deserve democracy while the "Democratic" opposition are the same guys who are currently being chased around Mali by the French for being a horde of terrorists.

Palestine's neither hear nor there, depending on how much of what Hamas says is just posturing and how much they really do just want to kill Jews (rather than have freedom or their fair share of political power vis-a-vis Fatah).

Chechnya, having been co-opted by the vicious Caucasus Emirate, does not deserve self-determination.

Although I also believe that larger countries are more viable politically, better able to act on the international scene and better able to help their citizenry enrich themselves, so I tend to believe that countries shouldn't fall apart over small differences, and would likely oppose it if, say, Vermont wanted out, even though an independent Vermont would likely be a "better" country than America proper.

Most anti-secessionists are statists or imperialists who don't believe in self-governance and also don't believe in either national or personal autonomy. Often a nation-state is not motivated to separate, precisely because the term "nation" is just another terminology for people - a cohesive group. It's when there are multiple nations in a state from which a secessionist movement begins. The exception would be contractual federations that limit their states and follow a republican system (as opposed to a democratic one.)

If the State is your religion, and something you swear fealty to, any apostasy from that religion is punishable by death.

(You think I'm joking)

Here you are describing a caricature of what you think a secessionist is, not what they are in actuality.

LOL. In conjunction with the above, I can't help but read this as: "Southerners are worse than Hamas." No way to an independent South! But a nation run by Hamas? Eh, maybe.

Okay, but who are you to say that it's a small difference, or to even oppose anything if you are not a Vermonter? That you even feel Vermont would likely do better on its own but would still deny them independence because... "we all belong to each other" or some such nonsense ought to give you pause. That's pretty tyrannical.

No, I don't. I've often noted the irony that for many of the people who yammer on the most about the need for separation between church and state, their church is the state. It's not that they respect freedom of conscience so much as they don't like their god having competition.