4 ms·

> This is imperialism. No, that is basic constitutionalism. In unitary state citizens have equal rights w.r.t. any part of the country. Asserting that just a

> This is imperialism. No, that is basic constitutionalism. In unitary state citizens have equal rights w.r.t. any part of the country. Asserting that just a part of population should unilaterally decide such important decision that have effect on rights of all citizens, and the other part have no say in it, is fundamentally against equal rights.

l3uwin 4y ago
Ok imperialist
- FrontierPsych 4y ago
  I am going to secede from the USA. It's just my own house on a 1/4 acre. I'm going to start a new country on it. I am not going to be a victim of imperialism any more. I'm going to create my own country of 1/4 acre.
  - l3uwin 4y ago
    If you gave it back to the indigenous people it was stolen from maybe we could have a conversation. Otherwise you just re-colonized already stolen land
    - FrontierPsych 4y ago
      Meh, all land is stolen land. I'm celtic ancestory, and we once owned almost all of Europe until those darned Vikings/Germanic/Roman people came and stole it from us 2,000 years ago. WHEN DO I GET MY LAND BACK! But then again, we probably stole it from some prior civilization, who stole it from a prior one, who stole it from the Neanderthals. We need to get the DNA from Neaderthals, clone them, bring their population back and then give back all their land to them because we, the homo sapiens stole it from them. Plus you are acting like it is all different groups of different people. ALL of us came from the Great Rift Valley of Ethiopia, we are all brothers and sisters. It's not group against group it is brother and sister against brother and sister. No such thing as "indigenous people", it's just one brother went one way, another went another way. And it isn't like the Aztecs didn't take land away from other tribes, too. Or Incans didn't enslave other tribes and take there stuff. You probably think it is ok for that to happen because they are both "indigenous" but stealing is stealing. And Russia is trying to colonize Ukraine right now. It's all the same. Neighbor against neighbor, town against town, state against state, or hemisphere against hemisphere - it's all colonization/recolonization. India people stole their land from the Denosovans or whomever was there first. It's the same old song and same old song and dance, my friend. Anyways, I agree with you. I'm going to Europe. I'm going to take back Europe from the French, Germans, Spanish, et al. and get it back for the Celts. I'll send you a postcard from time to time and let you know how it's going. (This is meant as half-humorous, half true. Or all humorous and all true, take your pick.)
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        Give em hell o7
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      Which indigenous people? The ones we stole it from or the ones who had it stolen from by the tribe we stole it from?
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        Why not just look it up https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        That doesn't answer the question. If we are going to give back the land who should we give it back to?
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    A wonderful idea! Of course, you’d need to negotiate a treaty with the US before you left your farm. And you probably need a way to protect yourself—if I come and kill you, who’d enforce the law?! (You have laws, don’t you?). And what about trade? Declaring your farm a country is probably more trouble than it’s worth—-but what about your state or region? Wouldn’t it be nice to belong to a right-sized political system? One where you know and have access to your political representatives? Wouldn’t it be nice to set policy based on what you and your neighbors think, without a care about the opinions of strangers who live thousands of miles away (and have their own problems and concerns)? Sure you’d miss the single market—-but you don’t need political union for that. Nor do you need political union to provide for the common defense. The fact that an idea appears impractical at first glance is no reason to reject it. Remember when democracy was generally understood to be impracticable?
    - FrontierPsych 4y ago
      Oh, that's already all done! I just didn't know you wanted me to post all 5,243 pages of laws and foreign policies and everything else here. :P It's easy now with the internet, it's all cookie cutter legal templates. I have merceneries that I pay for protection - off duty police from the country that surrounds my house, for example. Don't worry, it's all very well thought out and everything you mentioned and more is taken care of.
marcusverus 4y ago
Nonsense. The idea that a government can rule over you and and your children for all of time, until it gives you permission to leave, is just ridiculous. It is a vestige of monarchical, divine-right thinking. As long as a government maintains the consent of the governed, those citizens should adhere to the laws. Otherwise, it’s time for a new government.
- aa-jv 4y ago
  The people always get the government they deserve.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > Nonsense. The idea that a government can rule over you and and your children for all of time, until it gives you permission to leave, is just ridiculous. Of course anyone can leave the country and its government, that is basic human right, you just cannot take a part of country with you, because all other citizens have the same rights for that part of country like you. > As long as a government maintains the consent of the governed, those citizens should adhere to the laws. Otherwise, it’s time for a new government. Obviously, but the society that decides that is a full body of citizens of the country, not just some subset based on ethnic lines or historical borders of ancient countries of the past. That would be nationalistic thinking of 19. century and we saw in 20. century where ethnic nationalism leads.
  - marcusverus 4y ago
    > Of course anyone can leave the country and its government, that is basic human right, By “leave” I meant “secede”, not “emigrate”. >you just cannot take a part of country with you, because all other citizens have the same rights for that part of country like you. Do they? The Scottish claim the right to hold a secession referendum without the input of the English. This claim is rooted in their natural human right to self-representation. The UK claim that they (i.e. the English and the Welsh) get a say in the matter—but where does this claim originate? The answer, of course, is the political Union. But is it just to allow the (merely political) “rights” of the English to trump the fundamental human rights of the Scotts? I think not. If you examine the foundation of those political rights (the Union), you’ll find that its legitimacy is derived entirely from the consent of the member states who formed the Union. In other words, the only way to deny the Scotts their right of self representation today is to point at the Union and say, “Sorry! Your great-great-great-great-great-great -great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpa signed away your human rights when they joined the Union!” They had the right to self representation, but modern Scots don’t. It’s right there on the piece of paper! This is laughable. The idea that our systems of government can forever override our natural right to self-representation is—like I said—an extension of the old divine-right, monarchical systems. > Obviously, but the society that decides that is a full body of citizens of the country, not just some subset based on ethnic lines or historical borders of ancient countries of the past. The Scottish want to represent themselves. They get to define who “themselves” is—that’s the ‘self’ in self-representation. > That would be nationalistic thinking of 19. century and we saw in 20. century where ethnic nationalism leads. It is true that frustrated ethnic nationalism contributed to the wars of the 20th century, though they were hardly the sole or even the primary cause. In Postwar Europe, the neat matching of ethnic borders with national ones has done wonders for peace in the region. The handful of unstable areas exist where political borders do NOT neatly match ethnic lines—the borderlands of Ireland/North Ireland, Kosovo/Serbia, Russia/Ukraine. Not all such places in Europe are unstable, but most unstable places share this characteristic. Meanwhile it is universally acknowledged that the drawing of Middle Eastern and African borders without consideration for ethnic distinctions has been a leading cause of instability and unhappiness in those regions. So the idea that ethnic nationalism is bad in general is just wrong. The idea that Scottish nationalism brings a risk of war and cataclysm is ass-backwards. The only possible way that Scottish nationalism spirals into violence if the English and Welsh attempt to establish their dominion over Scotland by force. Which would, of course, be imperialism

l3uwin 4y ago

Ok imperialist

FrontierPsych 4y ago
I am going to secede from the USA. It's just my own house on a 1/4 acre. I'm going to start a new country on it. I am not going to be a victim of imperialism any more. I'm going to create my own country of 1/4 acre.
- l3uwin 4y ago
  If you gave it back to the indigenous people it was stolen from maybe we could have a conversation. Otherwise you just re-colonized already stolen land
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
    Meh, all land is stolen land. I'm celtic ancestory, and we once owned almost all of Europe until those darned Vikings/Germanic/Roman people came and stole it from us 2,000 years ago. WHEN DO I GET MY LAND BACK! But then again, we probably stole it from some prior civilization, who stole it from a prior one, who stole it from the Neanderthals. We need to get the DNA from Neaderthals, clone them, bring their population back and then give back all their land to them because we, the homo sapiens stole it from them. Plus you are acting like it is all different groups of different people. ALL of us came from the Great Rift Valley of Ethiopia, we are all brothers and sisters. It's not group against group it is brother and sister against brother and sister. No such thing as "indigenous people", it's just one brother went one way, another went another way. And it isn't like the Aztecs didn't take land away from other tribes, too. Or Incans didn't enslave other tribes and take there stuff. You probably think it is ok for that to happen because they are both "indigenous" but stealing is stealing. And Russia is trying to colonize Ukraine right now. It's all the same. Neighbor against neighbor, town against town, state against state, or hemisphere against hemisphere - it's all colonization/recolonization. India people stole their land from the Denosovans or whomever was there first. It's the same old song and same old song and dance, my friend. Anyways, I agree with you. I'm going to Europe. I'm going to take back Europe from the French, Germans, Spanish, et al. and get it back for the Celts. I'll send you a postcard from time to time and let you know how it's going. (This is meant as half-humorous, half true. Or all humorous and all true, take your pick.)
    - l3uwin 4y ago
      Give em hell o7
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    Which indigenous people? The ones we stole it from or the ones who had it stolen from by the tribe we stole it from?
    - l3uwin 4y ago
      Why not just look it up https://native-land.ca/ https://native-land.ca/
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        That doesn't answer the question. If we are going to give back the land who should we give it back to?
- marcusverus 4y ago
  A wonderful idea! Of course, you’d need to negotiate a treaty with the US before you left your farm. And you probably need a way to protect yourself—if I come and kill you, who’d enforce the law?! (You have laws, don’t you?). And what about trade? Declaring your farm a country is probably more trouble than it’s worth—-but what about your state or region? Wouldn’t it be nice to belong to a right-sized political system? One where you know and have access to your political representatives? Wouldn’t it be nice to set policy based on what you and your neighbors think, without a care about the opinions of strangers who live thousands of miles away (and have their own problems and concerns)? Sure you’d miss the single market—-but you don’t need political union for that. Nor do you need political union to provide for the common defense. The fact that an idea appears impractical at first glance is no reason to reject it. Remember when democracy was generally understood to be impracticable?
  - FrontierPsych 4y ago
    Oh, that's already all done! I just didn't know you wanted me to post all 5,243 pages of laws and foreign policies and everything else here. :P It's easy now with the internet, it's all cookie cutter legal templates. I have merceneries that I pay for protection - off duty police from the country that surrounds my house, for example. Don't worry, it's all very well thought out and everything you mentioned and more is taken care of.

marcusverus 4y ago

Nonsense. The idea that a government can rule over you and and your children for all of time, until it gives you permission to leave, is just ridiculous. It is a vestige of monarchical, divine-right thinking. As long as a government maintains the consent of the governed, those citizens should adhere to the laws. Otherwise, it’s time for a new government.

aa-jv 4y ago
The people always get the government they deserve.
zajio1am 4y ago
> Nonsense. The idea that a government can rule over you and and your children for all of time, until it gives you permission to leave, is just ridiculous. Of course anyone can leave the country and its government, that is basic human right, you just cannot take a part of country with you, because all other citizens have the same rights for that part of country like you. > As long as a government maintains the consent of the governed, those citizens should adhere to the laws. Otherwise, it’s time for a new government. Obviously, but the society that decides that is a full body of citizens of the country, not just some subset based on ethnic lines or historical borders of ancient countries of the past. That would be nationalistic thinking of 19. century and we saw in 20. century where ethnic nationalism leads.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  > Of course anyone can leave the country and its government, that is basic human right, By “leave” I meant “secede”, not “emigrate”. >you just cannot take a part of country with you, because all other citizens have the same rights for that part of country like you. Do they? The Scottish claim the right to hold a secession referendum without the input of the English. This claim is rooted in their natural human right to self-representation. The UK claim that they (i.e. the English and the Welsh) get a say in the matter—but where does this claim originate? The answer, of course, is the political Union. But is it just to allow the (merely political) “rights” of the English to trump the fundamental human rights of the Scotts? I think not. If you examine the foundation of those political rights (the Union), you’ll find that its legitimacy is derived entirely from the consent of the member states who formed the Union. In other words, the only way to deny the Scotts their right of self representation today is to point at the Union and say, “Sorry! Your great-great-great-great-great-great -great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandpa signed away your human rights when they joined the Union!” They had the right to self representation, but modern Scots don’t. It’s right there on the piece of paper! This is laughable. The idea that our systems of government can forever override our natural right to self-representation is—like I said—an extension of the old divine-right, monarchical systems. > Obviously, but the society that decides that is a full body of citizens of the country, not just some subset based on ethnic lines or historical borders of ancient countries of the past. The Scottish want to represent themselves. They get to define who “themselves” is—that’s the ‘self’ in self-representation. > That would be nationalistic thinking of 19. century and we saw in 20. century where ethnic nationalism leads. It is true that frustrated ethnic nationalism contributed to the wars of the 20th century, though they were hardly the sole or even the primary cause. In Postwar Europe, the neat matching of ethnic borders with national ones has done wonders for peace in the region. The handful of unstable areas exist where political borders do NOT neatly match ethnic lines—the borderlands of Ireland/North Ireland, Kosovo/Serbia, Russia/Ukraine. Not all such places in Europe are unstable, but most unstable places share this characteristic. Meanwhile it is universally acknowledged that the drawing of Middle Eastern and African borders without consideration for ethnic distinctions has been a leading cause of instability and unhappiness in those regions. So the idea that ethnic nationalism is bad in general is just wrong. The idea that Scottish nationalism brings a risk of war and cataclysm is ass-backwards. The only possible way that Scottish nationalism spirals into violence if the English and Welsh attempt to establish their dominion over Scotland by force. Which would, of course, be imperialism