Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Mill's claim that multinational states are incompatible with democracy is mistaken

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.There are actual cases of multinational democratic states, such as Canada and Belgium
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Switzerland may also count as a multinational democratic state
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The United States can be considered a multinational democratic state because most Indian tribes have a legal status approaching sovereignty
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Deliberative democratic theory (Habermas, Cohen) grounds legitimacy in inclusive rational discourse, not shared national identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Multinational states can institutionalize multiple public spheres that feed into shared deliberative procedures, as seen in consociational democracies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill conflates cultural homogeneity with the civic trust required for deliberation, but Kymlicka shows minority rights protections can generate that trust instead.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's argument assumes a single demos is necessary for democratic accountability, but federal and consociational arrangements demonstrate demoicracy—democracy among multiple peoples—is coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nicolaïdis's demoicracy framework shows that overlapping demoi with differentiated representation can satisfy democratic legitimacy without cultural unity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.