Do You Support Sovereignty Self-determination?

#51
#51
n_huffhines said:
The federal government would undoubtedly go to war to keep New Mexico, and they would have a lot of support. You would call them irrational?
Click to expand...

Would they have a lot of support?

And how rational would they be to start fighting and killing their own countrymen?
 
#53
#53
volprof said:
The problem with self-determination is that it is implicit anarchy. No, it's not necessarily doing away with government (rather, it is creating a new one), but philosophically, it is aligned with anarchy. Once you allow self-determination as a principle, by that same principle you have to allow anyone to be self-determinate. It may sound far-fetched, but, in other words, I should be able to be my own country.

I think asking questions about the legitimacy of self-determination is a de facto encounter with anarchism. Can you accept anarchy?

And, to clarify, by anarchy, I don't necessarily mean a complete lack of government (although it can be); I mean that self-determination opens itself up to a multitude of non-hierarchical systems or "systems" of governance.
Click to expand...

1. Collective self-determination is not implicit anarchy, and it does not reduce to such on the principles that support collective self-determination. The principle that supports anarchy is merely based on the question of, "How ought I to live in isolation?" If that answer is carried over to society, then that principle can support anarchy. But, the question underlying collective self-determination is, "How ought we live together?" Such a question is answered by reference to and the establishment of collective and societal norms, complete with an enforcement system. Not anarchy.

2. One can get to anarchy by asserting strong natural rights. These need not be asserted by any individual, whether in a collective or out. However, you stated in the beginning of your post, "The problem with self-determination is that it is implicit anarchy." Even if that were true (which I reject), why is that a problem? Why is anarchy (i.e., a society in which the institutions are not more powerful than any single individual within the society) problematic? Anarchy and peace are not mutually exclusive; anarchy and justice are not mutually exclusive; anarchy and efficiency of production are not mutually exclusive.

The way to problematize anarchy is the way it has been problematized since Plato and Aristotle. Persons are either naturally weak willed and, thus, prone to evil or persons are naturally a mere part of a polis (i.e., the polis is the natural end or telos of man). Both of these principles make anarchy problematic. Yet, both of these principles also make any open and free society (representative republics, democracies, etc.) problematic. The natural conclusion when using these principles (the principles that make anarchy problematic) are totalitarian states. This is Plato's Republic. This is Aristotles polis. Sure, Aristotle thinks democracy ought to be instituted, but only because he thinks that getting a succession of good tyrants is tough, if not impossible; thus, he thinks democracy, while corrupted and one of the worst forms of government, will merely last longer. He is in no way a supporter of democracy, however. He supports tyranny, because the masses are prone to evil and because they are merely and naturally just cogs in the machine that is the polis (this is also why it was so easy for Carl Schmitt to take Aristotelian politics and apply it to the Nazi regime as justification).
 
#54
#54
Maybe he wants Alaska back. I mean, if Putin decides that Russia was really screwed when it sold the vast expanse of Alaska to the United States for a measly $7.2 million back in 1867, he may now want to nullify the deal. Treaties, contracts and deals mean nothing to the guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#56
#56
Grand Vol said:
Would they have a lot of support?

And how rational would they be to start fighting and killing their own countrymen?
Click to expand...

Well, they had a majority support in the Civil War and the majority still "historically" supports the North today.

I think the government is behaving rationally because they have an incentive (power). I think the people who support them are irrational because they don't have a real incentive to want to keep New Mexico as part of the union. I was wondering what you think, though.
 
#57
#57
n_huffhines said:
Well, they had a majority support in the Civil War and the majority still "historically" supports the North today.

I think the government is behaving rationally because they have an incentive (power). I think the people who support them are irrational because they don't have a real incentive to want to keep New Mexico as part of the union. I was wondering what you think, though.
Click to expand...

They "historically" support the North because the generic "they" get fed the political correct reasons for the Secession and reasons for the start of the Civil War. Most are unaware of all the reasons the Confederacy came about and what actually caused the outbreak of war. Most will tell you slavery was the reason, but there are quite a few items that were to blame.

And the rational thought process depends greatly on which side of the equation you happen to be on. Politicians might seem rational because they believe it's illegal for a State to move to secession although their underlying motive will be the slip of the power base. You are correct that people blindly following the so called rational leaders are irrational because they will tend to be uneducated on the real reasons behind it and will believe what those "rational" leaders and the media tells them.

But on the flip side of that coin, whether or not the reasons for secession are valid depends greatly on the point of view of why it happened.
 
#58
#58
Good points. The people today who are easy to fool into thinking the Civil War was good vs evil and it was a fight worth fighting are going to be easy to fool into thinking maintaining the union is a matter of national security and results in the greater good. JMO
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top