4 ms·

Even if this is true, and terrorism threatens the existence of the state, states have no right to exist. New states often come into being, and states often stop

Even if this is true, and terrorism threatens the existence of the state, states have no right to exist. New states often come into being, and states often stop existing (East Germany, USSR). This isn't inherently good or bad. There are ethical rationales for opposing terrorism, but defending the existence of particular national governments isn't one of them.

zakk 10y ago
> states have no right to exist Quite a big assumption you make. If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws. Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws. I'm sorry.
- sevenless 10y ago
  > If states have no right to exist, the obviously have no right of making new laws. That doesn't follow. States do make new laws, and people will go along with those laws, because the nature of a state is to compel people to follow its laws (by definition). It still doesn't mean that it's bad that any state should stop existing, or that we should oppose terrorism on the sole ground that it threatens states. Put it another way: a referendum to split the state into two (like the Scottish independence referendum), also threatens the state. That would not be a reason to oppose the referendum.
  - zakk 10y ago
    > States do make new laws Of course they do. You didn't read my reply thoroughly. I just said that if you believe they have no right to exist, you must also believe that they cannot have a right to make laws. > a referendum to split the state into two also threatens the state Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things. The former is somehow encouraged by international law, through the right of self-determination of nations. The latter, on the other hand, is frowned upon very badly, as it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    - sevenless 10y ago
      States don't make laws because they have a right to; they do it because they can. There's no supra-national law that specifically gives states a right to make laws, it's just part of national sovereignty. The mafia can also force people to go along with its protection racket, but that doesn't mean the mafia has a right to do it. Just that we live in a world where it's possible. > Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things. Not in terms of the outcomes, which might be identical. In the consequentialist argument you're making, you cannot oppose terrorism on the grounds that it destroys the state if you support a referendum that can destroy the state. > it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has nothing to say about national sovereignty. Actually, if you believe in the claims made by the UDHR, that contradicts the notion that nations should act as they please and make whatever laws they decide on. Anyway, I don't see why the UDHR should have any moral force. It wasn't decided on by a democratic vote, it was decided on by the victors after WW2, some of which weren't even democracies. There is no mechanism for amending the UDHR, and nobody has ever had a say in whether they wanted it to apply to them. "Human rights" don't exist.
      - zakk 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but I really don't get your point. Honestly it look like some kind of anarchy-ish wishful nitpicking. You cannot see how a peaceful splitting of a country is way different from terrorism. You cannot see that human rights do exist, whatever you like them or not, and there are courts enforcing them (ECtHR, for instance)... Well, my friend, seems like we are living in different worlds.

zakk 10y ago

> states have no right to exist Quite a big assumption you make. If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws. Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws. I'm sorry.

sevenless 10y ago
> If states have no right to exist, the obviously have no right of making new laws. That doesn't follow. States do make new laws, and people will go along with those laws, because the nature of a state is to compel people to follow its laws (by definition). It still doesn't mean that it's bad that any state should stop existing, or that we should oppose terrorism on the sole ground that it threatens states. Put it another way: a referendum to split the state into two (like the Scottish independence referendum), also threatens the state. That would not be a reason to oppose the referendum.
- zakk 10y ago
  > States do make new laws Of course they do. You didn't read my reply thoroughly. I just said that if you believe they have no right to exist, you must also believe that they cannot have a right to make laws. > a referendum to split the state into two also threatens the state Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things. The former is somehow encouraged by international law, through the right of self-determination of nations. The latter, on the other hand, is frowned upon very badly, as it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    States don't make laws because they have a right to; they do it because they can. There's no supra-national law that specifically gives states a right to make laws, it's just part of national sovereignty. The mafia can also force people to go along with its protection racket, but that doesn't mean the mafia has a right to do it. Just that we live in a world where it's possible. > Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things. Not in terms of the outcomes, which might be identical. In the consequentialist argument you're making, you cannot oppose terrorism on the grounds that it destroys the state if you support a referendum that can destroy the state. > it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This has nothing to say about national sovereignty. Actually, if you believe in the claims made by the UDHR, that contradicts the notion that nations should act as they please and make whatever laws they decide on. Anyway, I don't see why the UDHR should have any moral force. It wasn't decided on by a democratic vote, it was decided on by the victors after WW2, some of which weren't even democracies. There is no mechanism for amending the UDHR, and nobody has ever had a say in whether they wanted it to apply to them. "Human rights" don't exist.
    - zakk 10y ago
      I'm sorry, but I really don't get your point. Honestly it look like some kind of anarchy-ish wishful nitpicking. You cannot see how a peaceful splitting of a country is way different from terrorism. You cannot see that human rights do exist, whatever you like them or not, and there are courts enforcing them (ECtHR, for instance)... Well, my friend, seems like we are living in different worlds.