7 ms·
So you can only be serious about political ideas if you start shooting cops? Nonsense.
by muninn_ 10y ago
So you can only be serious about political ideas if you start shooting cops? Nonsense.
- madaxe_again 10y agoWhy? One of the pillars of statehood is self defence. His political ideal is founding a state, not promulgating an ideology. To be clear I'm not suggesting that he should, but if he wishes to found a libertarian state, that would be the correct step. Can you think of any state that had a non-violent birth?
- soneca 10y agoBrazil became independent without a war.
- madaxe_again 10y agoAnd the Indians just peacefully gave up their land. Next falsehood?
- soneca 10y agoThat was Portugal, not Brazil.
- madaxe_again 10y agoBut Brazil would not exist without that foundation of violence. Do you think that if the Portuguese hadn't invaded Brazil would still somehow exist?
- icebraining 10y agoAnd I'm sure Serbia and Croatia had their fair share of violence in the past, hence by your standard the new microstate already has that foundation.
- icebraining 10y agoNo, the correct step is finding people to join his cause. Doing otherwise is being dumb, not serious.
- madaxe_again 10y agoAnd once people join his cause, then what? Serbia go "oh alright then"? You can built a movement as much as you like but until it actually moves it's just a group of people doing nothing.
- icebraining 10y agoYou can built a movement as much as you like but until it actually moves it's just a group of people doing nothing. Yes, until they do something, they haven't done it. #lapalissade
- mattzito 10y agoSingapore?
- pavel_lishin 10y agoCanada gained its independence without a war. You can call out the native issue as in the case of Brazil, but then you doom any possible future state to a "violent birth" just by virtue of some cromagnon somewhere beating the last neanderthal to death to establish Homo Sapiens dominion on the planet. And in any case, so what if every state so far has had a violent birth? Are we doomed forever to repeat the same paradigm?
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThe modern South Africa. Zambia. 17 African territories in 1960 were made independent without war.
- umbrai_nation 10y agoTo be fair, Canada's not _actually_ independent yet. The queen is still our head of state, but that probably lasts only until she actually tries to act like it.
- quicknir 10y agoShe's the head of state, not the head of government. She doesn't have the power even theoretically to make any executive or legislative decisions. Aside from "representing" Canada in a very vague sense, the closest thing to real power that she or her representative (the governor general) has is to "decide" which party to ask to attempt to form a government after an election. This is basically always simply the part with the most seats, barring very rare exceptions. Anyhow, tl; dr: Canada is most certainly independent, and gained its independence peacefully (although there were minor conflicts prior to that).
- ptaipale 10y agoMany countries have had a non-violent birth, but generally, it takes a considerable will of actual people actually living there to achieve it. For instance, the dissolution of personal union between Norway and Sweden, where Norway got independence in 1905. Malaysia was rather glad to get rid of Singapore in 1965. Much of the dissolution of the British Empire happened without actual violence in the independence, although there has been considerable violence in many of the places afterwards. Even the independence of Baltic states and other Soviet republics in 1991 at the collapse of USSR came without real war; there was some violence but you can't really call it a violent birth.
- madaxe_again 10y agoYou are talking about places which already had governments and had an orderly transition of power - not a new state being founded from nothing. To say there was no violence in the Baltics is highly disingenuous - Latvia gained independence through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, gained it again through bloodshed, lost it through bloodshed, then finally glastnost - which was largely non-violent. I was quite literally at their independence memorial today in Riga.
- ptaipale 10y agoWell, an orderly transition of power and a functional government are clearly a requirement for forming any new country, peacefully or violently. If you didn't set up a government, you've got no country because you have no way of managing anything. As I said, with Baltics I was specifically referring to 1991 which was largely non-violent. Yes, not entirely without violence, but these modern countries were not forged by military power, they were forged by the will of the nation.
- madaxe_again 10y agoSo, the war of independence was non-violent? Honestly, learn history beyond the last 25 years before you shoot your mouth off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_War_of_Independence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_War_of_Independence
- ommunist 10y agoTell this to the US troops shooting British marines in 1812. Without shooting British "peacekeepers" the US could not get its independence.
- madaxe_again 10y agoWhat nonsense. The US came into being by the will of the people. There was no bloodshed.
- ommunist 10y agoIs that so? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 Also tell that to Mexican people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier#The_Mexican.E2.80.93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier#The_Mexican.... and of course here there was no bloodshed at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
- Donzo 10y agoI suppose this thread exemplifies the problems with using sarcasm in textual discussions.
- jessaustin 10y agoWhen sarcasm rubs up against incoherence, who can say where the border actually lies?
- madaxe_again 10y agoWay off to the right - in liberaland.
- madaxe_again 10y agoFacts and reason don't work, so sarcasm it is.