If enough local people engage in political activism or other cultural activities, then those attributes may also change. Those changes may be displeasing to people who favor the original values.
Therefore, should we also ban political activism? If not, why not?
I'm assuming nothing about cultural attributes. I'm simply not understanding why the use of violence to preserve certain statistical distributions of cultural attributes is justified morally.
And if it is justified morally, I also can't see why one can't use the same justification to suppress various local cultural movements which might also change how the country is run and displease a bunch of people.
Of course they should resist the use of violence by others.
I'm merely suggesting the French shouldn't violently resist people coming to France and peacefully selling weinershnitzel and saurkraut to people who enjoy these things.
That would work if deciding which things are and are not rights was not itself a preference. You can say that you have some axiom which informs your decisions, but you may have some difficulty proving that this axiom is superior to all others, or all others known (and in which logical framework?).
In practice, this usually ends up selecting for the preference to simply not care about any of the above.
Local cultural movements are probably violently suppressed all the time. See activities of China, nsa, etc... In corporations, see various actions and words listed under "career limiting moves".
Therefore, should we also ban political activism? If not, why not?
I'm assuming nothing about cultural attributes. I'm simply not understanding why the use of violence to preserve certain statistical distributions of cultural attributes is justified morally.
And if it is justified morally, I also can't see why one can't use the same justification to suppress various local cultural movements which might also change how the country is run and displease a bunch of people.