I think it's worth while for a large number of people to at least be familiar with the concept. It is a way to produce peaceful secession, and rewards governments that work and give liberty to their people. The concept is that a majority vote of 70% of any people of a community is enough to establish or re-align sovereignty. With it, good concepts such as libertarian monarchy (Liechtenstein), and direct democracy (Switzerland), become expansive instead of the follies of republican government that only breeds corruption. Republican governments become warlike and thus are expansive. But that form of democracy produces conflict in a society, and ultimately the will of the people ends up sold out by their representatives. Why do democratic borders cause any good form of government to become expansive? There are two reasons. The obvious one is that people will prefer to live in a government that serves their interests. This is counteracted by people wanting consistency in their legal system. When the difference in two countries becomes great, the nation that doesn't serve its people is punished by the loss of land. But their is another force that encourages transfer of sovereignty to systems that work even more strongly. People want to live in better systems, and mostly they solve that by moving there. If a lot of people want to move to a place, the property values go up because not everyone can live there at the same time. Liechtenstein is one of the most expensive places to live on Earth in terms of housing because of that. Ignoring cost you couldn't live in a better place. Because property values are higher in areas with more demand from people wanting to move there, there is a strong incentive if you live in a bordering community to vote to join the better country, because there is an immediate financial benefit for having your community change nations. Even if you are a socialist and don't want to join a libertarian nation, but the whole Earth wants there to be more libertarian nations by the fact that more people want to move to them, then it makes sense for it to join the better nation, you can have a windfall, and then move back to the nation with the government you prefer. I say this because I can see a lot of conflict on the horizon regarding potential secessionist movements, response to them, and conflict in what the best alternative form of government would be. There doesn't have to be conflict. People should be able to secede in peace. On the issue of what kind of government and if we should war with one another over it, the answer is to do all of them. If you have a peaceful way of having the best form of government prevail then the best will prevail with no conflict. It's clear that the current world order doesn't work. Bad forms of government spread. Leaders have an incentive to take advantage of and cheat their populations. A world order based on war only spreads cancer. You can have war and conflict and bad outcomes even after the toll is paid, or you can peace and good outcomes. We just have to get over this violence against people trying to disassociate with an entity. And we need to have a smooth way for nation projects to fail or expand based on their merits. When there is conflict a-brewing and you don't know what to do, just remember this idea. It will solve all of your problems. But it is very important that a simple majority (50%) not be able to over turn all protections and powers of a government. That's why that detail of only a strong majority (70%) is an important detail. Recognition of this for 50% would lead any nation to be tossed to and fro with the wind worse than a republican government with no limitations. The other advantage is that you could establish a small monarchy, and if the people don't like one detail (such that 70% agree that it is a problem), you can retro-actively form limits and continue as a constitutional monarchy. The last advantage is that if you have a illegitimate election in one country and half the country feels entirely cheated, everyone can be happy with the long term outcome with absolutely zero conflict at all, because the other half has a basis on which to leave and clear terms about how to do it, and clear terms about how to pursue all of the conflicting ideas of what to become. Just remember the idea for when it is needed.