3 ms·
There is another possibility: the modern notion that a sovereign's inhabited territory is not a chattel to be disposed of if an economically advantageous transa
by caf 11y ago
There is another possibility: the modern notion that a sovereign's inhabited territory is not a chattel to be disposed of if an economically advantageous transaction can be arranged, but a trust held in benefit of those who live there under the sovereign's protection.
Under this view, it would be an abrogation of the Greenlanders' right of self-determination for them to be passed to the United States without their agreement.
- SamReidHughes 11y agoAh, but what if they hold a referendum and 60% want to change sovereign and 40% don't. Is it not an abrogation of that 40%'s right to self-determination? Maybe we should recognize that everybody has different desires and voting exists merely to pacifistically answer the question of if we fought a civil war over this decision, who would be more likely to win.