The argument in favor of self-sufficiency/independence lasts as long as there's virgin land and resources available.
As soon as things turn into a zero sum game, consumption by definition deprives another, and there needs to be a better method of allocation than first/strongest.
To me, that's what restraints on direct democracy are -- ensuring that even those without numbers/power/pathos can get a fair shake. Because the best for everyone doesn't always come attached to the most of any of those.
E.g. I fail to be able to describe a scenario where raising taxes would ever win a straight democratic vote, even if it were a blatantly existential crisis for a nation.
> I fail to be able to describe a scenario where raising taxes would ever win a straight democratic vote, even if it were a blatantly existential crisis for a nation.
I think the original point was that on a sufficiently small scale, this isn't true. I was in an HOA that raised the fees, because the reserve funds got down to under $10k.
Maybe California is too large of a community, but (as a general rule) larger entities will devour smaller entities when allowed to do so.