4 ms·

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

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

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