Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

I dunno if this trend toward Balkanization of nations is a good thing or a bad thing. With open borders and whatnot in a union like the EU, I suppose it doesn't matter. I suppose it's a good thing, actually. Smaller countries means a gov't more representative of it's people, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

[Montague]

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

I guess a breakaway nation could be full of belligerent warmongers who put a belligerent autocrat into power to wreck vengeance on the world or something. This probably won't happen with Scotland or Flanders though, hopefully.

[kaijyuu]

A breakaway nation could also do stuff like genocide, slavery, and banning gay marriage. Not just stuff that affects those outside their borders.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Indeed. You'd see some serious shit going down in a lot of the states if all 50 of them were different countries, but together they're all more or less stable.

[Owlbread]

I sincerely disagree that a half supported it thirty years ago. And about a third of Scots support independence, yes. But things may change over the next two years.

That's nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_referendum,_1979

People have been talking about independence movements in europe like FOR REALZ THIS TIME! for two centuries.  They seldom realize just how unremarkable the separatism of the day is.

Thank you, but that is wrong. That is referring to the referendum for devolution, not the referendum for independence. There is an enormous difference.

That depends on the nature of the people and the method of the representation.

I guess a breakaway nation could be full of belligerent warmongers who put a belligerent autocrat into power to wreck vengeance on the world or something. This probably won't happen with Scotland or Flanders though, hopefully.

That's what things like the EU help with.

Yes, it is "for reals this time", for the first time in 300 years. We've never had a vote on independence, and, until last year, some said it would never happen. It is very remarkable indeed. Not with respect to nations across the world or even across Europe, but with respect to the UK and the British Isles it is. Ireland is a completely different kettle of fish. If you please stop thinking of these movements as just "Europe" (which is vague and will lead you into sketchy territory), try framing them in a historical context with the individual countries that the regions are trying to break away from.

[Montague]

A breakaway nation could also do stuff like genocide, slavery, and banning gay marriage. Not just stuff that affects those outside their borders.

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter? Tricky question though, if such a place had malcontents they could always rebel and form another breakaway country, right? Probably not.

Indeed. You'd see some serious shit going down in a lot of the states if all 50 of them were different countries, but together they're all more or less stable.

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are. Culture is pretty homogeneous and inoffensive across the country, even in flyover country. You probably would see some states collapse into poverty. Idk how Illinois would survive.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It is the duty of all the free peoples of the world to ensure the spread of liberty and prosperity to all humanity, just as it is the duty of all of the privileged to help the unprivileged, no matter what that privilege is. In this way we compensate for our bloody history and unfair world so that all people may live happy and meaningful lives free of despair and manipulation by the powerful.

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are.

I'm not saying Americans are backwards, indeed I find the very assertion to be pop geopolitical nonsense, but would you be equally fine with living in California and living in Mississippi if both were uncontrolled by the federal government?

[kaijyuu]

The only way I'd be fine with a "nations can do whatever they want so long as it only affects themselves" policy is if borders were 100% open. In reality, immigration and emmigration are serious issues and you can't just pick and choose which nation most represents what you want.

So suppose I lived in a country that banned gay marriage. Their prerogative, right? Well if I could just move away to another country that didn't, then sure, I might agree with you. But I likely won't be able to. Either the country I'm in will try to keep me contained, or the one I want to move to is trying to slow/prevent immigration. That's the unfortunate reality.

[Montague]

Sure, but that would be their prerogative, right? If they really desire such a society then isn't it their right? Some cultures do reprehensible things, female circumcision and the such, but so long as they don't export such vile policy across their borders does it really matter?

Short Answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It is the duty of all the free peoples of the world to ensure the spread of liberty and prosperity to all humanity, just as it is the duty of all of the privileged to help the unprivileged, no matter what that privilege is. In this way we compensate for our bloody history and unfair world so that all people may live happy and meaningful lives free of despair and manipulation by the powerful.

I don't think Americans are as backwards as you imply they are.

I'm not saying Americans are backwards, indeed I find the very assertion to be pop geopolitical nonsense, but would you be equally fine with living in California and living in Mississippi if both were uncontrolled by the federal government?

I agree with you, but you can't just have a policy of invading or interfering with sovereign nations because you find their culture to be vile and immoral, right? That sort of policy works both ways. If they are not harming you or your interests there is no cause to be belligerent toward them.

The only way I'd be fine with a "nations can do whatever they want so long as it only affects themselves" policy is if borders were 100% open. In reality, immigration and emmigration are serious issues and you can't just pick and choose which nation most represents what you want.

So suppose I lived in a country that banned gay marriage. Their prerogative, right? Well if I could just move away to another country that didn't, then sure, I might agree with you. But I likely won't be able to. Either the country I'm in will try to keep me contained, or the one I want to move to is trying to slow/prevent immigration. That's the unfortunate reality.

Well, you can always form a separatist movement and secede or overthrow the government from the majority. Many separatist are indeed oppressed minorities that can't just move to a nicer country on a whimsy.

Although in a union like the EU or the USA to a degree, you really can just move someplace nicer. So the move toward Balkanization there seems like a good thing to me.

[GlyphGryph]

Which is why its interesting within the concept of states rights in the united states, because immigration/emigration is trivial for the bulk of the population.

(Not to say it's pleasant - You'll obviously not be bringing everything with you when you go. But you always CAN go. And I know people who have over the gay marriage thing.)

[kaijyuu]

I'm one of them (though I'm moving for a hell of a lot more reasons, too).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I agree with you, but you can't just have a policy of invading or interfering with sovereign nations because you find their culture to be vile and immoral, right?

Wrong. Invasions are a last-resort thing, but interference is a must. Cultural rights cannot invalidate human rights if we are ever to have a better world.

That sort of policy works both ways.

Sometimes conflict is inevitable, in all senses of the word. To do nothing is worse.

If they are not harming you or your interests there is no cause to be belligerent toward them.

And if they are harming the interests of their own people? That I was born in-between a certain set of invisible lines does not keep me from caring about the well-being of those born between other invisible lines. Just worrying about yourself isn't enough, because none of us are divorced from the world, in both the personal and national sense. What happens anywhere, to anyone, will in the end have some sort of effect upon you. That effect can be a lot of things if you're a world away, but positive events generate positive echos more often than not.

Well, you can always form a separatist movement and secede or overthrow the government from the majority. Many separatist are indeed oppressed minorities that can't just move to a nicer country on a whimsy.

The effects of war are far reaching and very often are worse than whatever you were trying to prevent or solve. Far better to live in a society that is capable of solving its problems without violence or having one party pick up their ball and go home.

[GlyphGryph]

Wrong. Invasions are a last-resort thing, but interference is a must. Cultural rights cannot invalidate human rights if we are ever to have a better world

Well, it's clear where you stand on the matter of eating babies.

[Darvi]

Well since veal is delicious and unborn chicks are considered a delicacy in some places etc...