Anonymous #1 3w

shhh international stuff is more interesting

14

Anonymous #1 3w

I’ll catch you up on all of American politics. Trump = Bad democrat= no clear leadership. There you go I got you caught up.

8

Anonymous #2 3w

I see

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I feel like self determination shouldn’t be as simple as voting to join another country. Should parts of Canada be able to join the U.S. if they wish? Where does it end, can individual towns vote to join another country or only large political regions? Are Catholics still discriminated against?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Theoretically I think parts of Canada should. The problem is when self determination ends up removing the will of others. While I theoretically would support something like Texan independence, in reality I don’t, because said independence would be used to persecute minorities within Texas. I don’t think it makes sense to prohibit a population of people from doing what they wish, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

You don’t think places randomly leaving their country would impact people and their positive rights ?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

That’s kind of my main problem with Unionism By Force (the term for forceful reunification of Ireland). It tries to pursue unification against the will of the majority of the northern Irish people. Fortunately, the Good Friday Agreement solved a lot of the issues regarding nationality and discrimination. Unfortunately, Brexit has made Ireland more iffy given its now no longer all EU.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Don’t think that would make an extremely unstable world if territories could just leave by a random vote? I feel like this would make an extremely tense world.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

It depends on the situation. Decolonization was when places left their country. That was, in most cases, good. It depends on how it was done, and what impacts said secession carries. For example, if free borders are maintained, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much. I don’t see what the argument is for forcing a population to remain in a country they don’t wish to be in. That’s pretty undemocratic.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

I believe in responsible democracy as a pretty fundamental principle. If a population wishes for their own self-determination, there should be mechanisms in place to facilitate this. And this is recognized by the Good Friday agreement. In it, if Northern Ireland and Ireland both agree by vote, the United Kingdom cannot stop their unification. If Northern Ireland held a vote tomorrow (and Ireland agreed), it would happen.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Even if you have free borders you’re still taking the tax and labor base of another country. Not directly voting for legislation is also not democratic, I feel like liberal democracies are more than voting = good.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Responsible democracy is when you let territories leave countries for any reason? Should parts of Ukraine be able to vote to leave Ukraine. I agree there should maybe a mechanism but I think you need broader consensus from the entire country bc territory and people leaving the broader country impacts people’s positive freedoms.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Why does one country have the right to take the taxes and labor of a population who does not wish to be a part of it? Shouldn’t that population have the right to their own taxes and labor? Self determination will always be a better principle than “dibs” or ancient history. Otherwise we have Argentina an the Falkland, or Israel and the West Bank, or Morocco and the Western Sahara.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Parts of Ukraine should absolutely be able to vote to leave Ukraine. The problem with the Crimea vote wasn’t that it happened, it was that it was rigged.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Once we reach the principle that the consent of a region does not matter as to whether they are part of a state, then we get colonialism, where the proclaimed right of the state to that land outweighs the wishes of the local population.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Bc those taxes and labor give people positive freedoms. Do you think people should be able to refuse to pay taxes? It’s not dibs it’s about global stability and protecting people’s individual freedoms.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

There’s a difference between having 2nd class citizens in a terrorist you invaded aka a colony vs allowing anyone to leave for any reason. These things aren’t the same.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

People’s individual freedoms include the right to choose their own government. I don’t see how this is controversial in your mind. We live in a country whose citizens separated because they wanted self-determination. Cubans were citizens of Spain, the Irish were citizens of the UK, Timorese were citizens of Indonesia. We do not find their independence (without the consent of their ruling country) controversial.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Frankly I think if you don’t believe in the right of a territory to choose their own destiny, you should not be engaging with this topic. The idea that “we control this region for historical reasons, the opinion of the inhabitants doesn’t matter” is how the Falklands war happened and how Morocco invaded the Western Sahara. Neither country made the inhabitants colonial subjects, but their rights were violated as their self-determination was denied.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

There’s a balance between individual freedoms and democracy. Someone may not want to be governed by their current government that doesn’t give them the right to kill everyone in their government despite that government existing outside of their consent. The reason we separated from Britain is bc we were 2nd class citizens within the British empire. If people are 2nd class citizens I’m fine with them breaking away that’s not an inconsistency.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Our disagreement isn’t I’m pro colonialism idk why you keep framing that way. If people are second class citizens within an empire I’m fine with them breaking away. I’m not fine with people breaking away for any reason. At least engage with what I’m actually saying.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I never said the opinion of inhabitants doesn’t matter.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

So you think that if the British had given the Americans parliamentary seats, then the Americans would have no right to break away?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Given you don’t think regions have a right to break away so long as they are treated as equal citizens, how do you feel about Taiwan?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yeah I think I would agree with that, but it gets kinda more complicated when we’re talking about the pretty distant past and the moral standard of states are different.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

The prc has never controlled Taiwan. I also think the PRC would be an illiberal government I’m fine with territories breaking away from illiberal governments.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Given Ireland had representation in parliament, would you be against Irish independence in the early 1900s?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Like just to drive home what our disagreement is, I’ve openly stated I would be fine with West Bank Palestinians violently resisting Israeli settlers and military in the West Bank. I think that would be a morally ok thing to do.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

So if a government is illiberal, people have the right to break away. But if the government is democratic, people have the right to political representation but that cannot include the right of secession unless the rest of the country agrees?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

It depends on the nature of their representation.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yes bc you leaving would impact the individual freedoms of other people in the country so you shouldn’t be allowed to leave without the consent of other people, unless those people are actively oppressing you.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Ireland was granted a degree of home rule, and in the resulting elections pro-independence parties won, who refused to join the British parliament and instead declared independence. Irish separatist forces attacked British ones without any approval and the war started, but the Irish parliament never officially declared war. A truce ended up being made once the British were losing control, and that allowed for Irish independence but Northern Ireland remained British. Very simplified

1

Anonymous #3 3w

It would depend if there representation was the same as any other political region.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Well that metric of oppression really throws a wrench into things (and to a degree also interferes with your stability argument). Separatist movements usually have legitimate grievances as to why they are trying to separate. It could be cultural repression (such as Kurds in Turkey) or neglect (like Corsica) or political marginalization (like Papua)

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Ireland’s representation was the same as the rest of Britain to my knowledge

1

Anonymous #3 3w

That’s probably bc we don’t let people leave anywhere for any reason.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Ok then I would probably say it’s wrong. I would maybe feel different bc they were recently oppressed I feel like reasonably people could question if this was a serious long term solution or not.

1