Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
So sovereignty is the soul province of a governing body and does not reside in the land owners rights in any way, unless they have a government. it's like there has been no progress in human affairs with you bob, no offence. And what's more should we have the right to displace indigenous populations, remove their human rights, enslave them based on the fact that they did not have a government

What do you mean landowners' rights? How did they get their rights? Did they buy the land from somebody, or did they just happen to be born there, and so it was automatically theirs? Get real, my friend.

Eh your question makes no sense?

Blaggard wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:He's an asshole Bob, an asshole by any other name is still an asshole. He's fucked up and fucked up big mate, and it's easy to see...

You're good at calling people names, but terrible at stating your case.

I already stated my case, there's little use repeating it.

Ukraine is subjugating the Crimean people to an unwanted government thrust upon them by the Soviet Union.

Blaggard wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:
So sovereignty is the soul province of a governing body and does not reside in the land owners rights in any way, unless they have a government. it's like there has been no progress in human affairs with you bob, no offence. And what's more should we have the right to displace indigenous populations, remove their human rights, enslave them based on the fact that they did not have a government

What do you mean landowners' rights? How did they get their rights? Did they buy the land from somebody, or did they just happen to be born there, and so it was automatically theirs? Get real, my friend.

Eh your question makes no sense?

Let me make it crystal clear to you. On what basis did those so-called landowners get their rights?

bobevenson wrote: Let me make it crystal clear to you. On what basis did those so-called landowners get their rights?

By living there for thousands of years generally as a culture and people and building a civilisation in an area which hence was theirs, on what basis did the US get its rights?

Blaggard wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Let me make it crystal clear to you. On what basis did those so-called landowners get their rights?

By living there for thousands of years generally as a culture and people and building a civilisation in an area which hence was theirs, on what basis did the US get its rights?

Just because you're a descendant of people who lived on some property thousands of years ago doesn't give you any property rights. Property rights are established, maintained and enforced by the current government.

Nah as I said before, you're living in the past, it doesn't work like that any more, we are not living in the days of Empire, you can no longer trample over peoples basic rights to sovereignty because you have a government and a rifle. Seriously bob you need to get with the times.

Blaggard wrote:You can no longer trample over peoples basic rights to sovereignty because you have a government and a rifle.

My God, man, governments around the world do it all the time!

Lol and that makes it right does it?

I am sorry but "governments have been doing it all the time", but that is more of indictment of the system we have to labour on as regards UNSec and the power of Veto afforded to the big players, than what is actually right.

Bob you can no longer just march into a country and claim it as yours, it does not work any more, even if the UN are paper tigers, even the US when they went against UNSec did not choose to annex the countries they moved into but rather democratise them and leave them to their own devices. The Crimea is already a democracy and if it wants to be part of Russia it can chose to be so in time by democratic means. These days there are better ways to fry a fish, if you chose tyranny and imperialism you end up in a world of pain politically these days, it is not the 10th-20th century any more.

Blaggard wrote:The Crimea is already a democracy and if it wants to be part of Russia it can chose to be so in time by democratic means.

If 100% of the Crimea voted to become a part of Russia, Ukraine would not allow it. Is that OK?

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:The Crimea is already a democracy and if it wants to be part of Russia it can chose to be so in time by democratic means.

If 100% of the Crimea voted to become a part of Russia, Ukraine would not allow it. Is that OK?

And you know that how?

Blaggard wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Blaggard wrote:The Crimea is already a democracy and if it wants to be part of Russia it can chose to be so in time by democratic means.

If 100% of the Crimea voted to become a part of Russia again, Ukraine would not allow it. Is that OK?

And you know that how?

Use your head. If 100% of the people in Texas voted to become a part of Mexico again, do you think the U.S. government would allow it?

bobevenson wrote:Use your head. If 100% of the people in Texas voted to become part of Mexico again, do you think the U.S. government would allow it?

Reverend Bob, given that lots of people in Texas own guns, couldn't they use those to defend their right to self determination?

uwot wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Use your head. If 100% of the people in Texas voted to become part of Mexico again, do you think the U.S. government would allow it?

Reverend Bob, given that lots of people in Texas own guns, couldn't they use those to defend their right to self determination?

Yes, but I think they would need Mexico's help just like the Crimeans need Russia's help.

bobevenson wrote: Use your head. If 100% of the people in Texas voted to become a part of Mexico again, do you think the U.S. government would allow it?

Yeah bob I actually do think they would allow it. Democracy is like that, it's why you have a country, when you fought the British for the right to govern you won, so how is that not going to happen hence?

So how would you hope to see Texas secede from the United states bob? By democratic means or when Mexico invades the united states, and you have the whole American/Mexico war again played out in technicolour?

The fact is bob when people don't want to be part of a state there is no way on Earth or in history you can keep them in that state. Russia would have been served much better by knowing history than using imperialism, but then it worked in the past for Russia, they are however chancing their arm, and it's going to end badly bob, just as it always does...

It's not the 17th century any more and you cannot politik as if it was.

Blaggard wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Use your head. If 100% of the people in Texas voted to become a part of Mexico again, do you think the U.S. government would allow it?

Yeah bob I actually do think they would allow it. Democracy is like that, it's why you have a country, when you fought the British for the right to govern you won, so how is that not going to happen hence?

"The most serious attempt at secession was advanced in the years 1860 and 1861 as eleven southern states each declared themselves seceded from the United States and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. This movement collapsed in 1865 with the defeat of Confederate forces by Union armies in the American Civil War." -Wikipedia