1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)
2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.
A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.
Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.
And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.
And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.
So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war?
How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.
And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.
I believe that if you want to come across as a government in which all parties are taken into consideration, you can't just give away territory for the greater good. That way, you are in essence betraying the principales in which that government was based. The Federation believes that EVERYONE has a right to live a happy life. By forcing people to move out of their homes, you are not letting them live the life they want.
I can understand how you say you could wake away from your home, your planet, your friends, your life. And some of the colonists did as you would. Some didn't.
The colonists were given a choice, move or life under Cardassian rule. They were never asked if they were oke with the Federation giving their homes away.
And that's how we come to Sisko's comment in "The Maquis". How it's very easy for people living in actual paradise to ignore how life is in the colonies. That these people were not living in the same kind of luxury that the core worlds of the Federation have. They chose to go out there, and create a world instead of simply living in one. The Federation says 'sure, go ahead, good for you'. But suddenly, when the Federation feels they have a better purpose for those planets, they suddenly say 'yeah, you know, we kinda need those worlds. And technically, they are still ours, so sorry'.
Can you blame the colonists for not trusting the Federation, for fighting for what they build?