So does one community have to vote to 70%, or do two?
Let's say I have a border parcel in Washington, right up next to BC. BC votes to annex my land. Now I'm forced into Canada's rules and taxes?
The community joining has to have the 70% vote. I guess the accepting nation could reject.
BC can't just vote to take your land. You could choose to join BC. A housing development or a political district in a county could vote to change nations.
The accepting nation would typically organize the vote and set the boundries for the vote.
I see what you're saying. I appreciate your ideals. In general, as long as people follow the NAP there's no reason they can't get along. The problem is, not many people follow the NAP.
Democracy is generally a slippery slope. As Hitler said, it's on the path to socialism. But like all things, consensus is a tool. Can be used for good and can be used for evil.
It means communities on a border can vote to exist in another nation. This makes nations work on merit.
It also means new nations can start out small. The need to take large portions of land when a nation is formed produces civil war and the solution of taking it afterward produces regular war.
I also believe that individuals on a border should be able to adjust what nation they are in so long as it doesn't interfere with the contiguousness of a nation. If you own a large farm on the US-Canada border and want to grow hemp then we just adjust the border.
When a voting a community should have 70% approval to move. It's a lot like amending the constitution in that the rules one has come to expect are being changed and so it requires more than a 50% majority.
Seeing how that will produce a lot of change and it needs such a significant majority it won't happen often unless one nation is significantly better.