Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: When Is It Justifiable For a State to Annex Territory?

  1. #1

    Default When Is It Justifiable For a State to Annex Territory?

    To answer this question, I would do a kind of cost-benefit analysis, comparing the aggression required to annex the territory with the aggression which the annexation would prevent, if any. For instance, if Rome is quite liberal and Gaul quite tyrannical, and Rome could annex some Gallic territory at a sufficiently low cost, doing so would be justified: if not, not.

    My question is directed particularly to those who reject the above analysis because they place a high value on national sovereignty. If you believe that territorial annexation is never justified, that calls into question the legitimacy of all existing nations (which only came into being in the first place through territorial annexation). If you believe that there are certain conditions under which territorial annexation is justified, what are they, if not those I laid out above?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    A very complex question indeed, I do not believe that "good government" alone is sufficient justification, there are potential justifications but I do not as yet have a comprehensive philosophical theory worked out, I therefore have to judge each case on it's merits one at a time.

    As to the legitimacy of nearly all extant nations all I can say is that we may be able to learn from the past but we can't change it, any attempt to judge more than the worst cases will founder for want of contextual understanding of the circumstances and the level of enlightenment of those who lived in those times.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3

    Default

    I'm not a government. I wouldn't know.
    Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

    Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

    Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

    Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

    Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

    Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

  5. #4

    Default

    Ideally, at the behest of the residents of the land to be annexed.
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    I think [Trump] is going to cut the budget.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    I give Trump 1 year to put [Clinton] in jail. See you in January 2018 about this issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    [Paul Ryan being kicked out of speakership] happens soon after the vote fails.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Why do you try to disprove actual real evidence by discussing the views of the person who compiled it? That doesn't make any logical sense.

  6. #5

    Default

    A nation's fate is unknowable, but still certain, so nat'l security is near-sighted a reason; "the end" never justifies something as bold as occupation and annexation of strange lands. Geography should be the invader's first consideration, e.g. terrain, ethnicity, religion, culture, and history - maybe in that order. At least four of those must positively justify planning, invading, and installing a puppet government. Otherwise, you're a schizo United Bases of America, taking decades of blowback and sinking trillions in deniable and endless wars.
    If freedom isn't free, it isn't liberty - its license.


    Look deep into
    my eyes blue
    You must understand
    Remember that all people
    will in future leave
    The Night will come
    I give you your heritage
    If you want
    it will not leave
    Heavy it weighs
    Remember, do not take
    more than you can carry


  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A very complex question indeed, I do not believe that "good government" alone is sufficient justification, there are potential justifications but I do not as yet have a comprehensive philosophical theory worked out, I therefore have to judge each case on it's merits one at a time.
    Can you give an example of an annexation which you think was justified?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Can you give an example of an annexation which you think was justified?
    South Carolina taking Ft. Sumpter.

    Ancient Israel taking the promised land.

    The US accepting Texas into the union. (The colonization by the Spanish and then the Anglos and the secession from Mexico are less clear)

    Most of history is Grey or Checkered, but I can imagine theoretical justifications like the conquest or even possibly the extermination of a tribe of cannibals that constantly raid the territory of the state in question.

    If I spent the time thinking about history I might be able to come up with other examples.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #8

    Default

    @Swordsmyth

    I'm wondering about your rationale:

    Ft. Sumpter/cannibals - justified because it was/would be defensive?

    Israel - justified on theological grounds (if so, I don't need the details)?

    Texas - justified because some sufficient fraction of the Texas population/their representatives supported it?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Ft. Sumpter/cannibals - justified because it was/would be defensive?
    Ft. Sumpter was not only vital to S. Carolina's defense but was a just part of it's share of Federal territory that it was entitled to take with it when it left the union.
    The cannibals example is defense/retribution for wrongs.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Israel - justified on theological grounds (if so, I don't need the details)?
    Yes, GOD owns everything and is the judge of everyone, he has a right to take from one group and give to another.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Texas - justified because some sufficient fraction of the Texas population/their representatives supported it?
    Yes, it was peaceful and voluntary.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, it was peaceful and voluntary.
    If you mean that it was popular, apparently so; if you mean that every Texas supported it, surely not.

    In any event, are those three justifications (self-defense, God's will, democratic self-determination) the only ones?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that it was popular, apparently so; if you mean that every Texas supported it, surely not.

    In any event, are those three justifications (self-defense, God's will, democratic self-determination) the only ones?
    I do not know if that is the complete list, but those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, I would need to be given an example or a philosophical argument to judge for any others, as I said before "I can rule them better than they rule themselves" is not good enough.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I do not know if that is the complete list, but those are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head, I would need to be given an example or a philosophical argument to judge for any others, as I said before "I can rule them better than they rule themselves" is not good enough.
    No people rules itself; it's always one group ruling another. "Self-rule" a euphemism for the ruling group being of local origin.

    That aside, as for another example, how about the US annexing Mexican territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo?

    Those territories didn't join voluntarily, nor (I think) would anyone make the argument that their annexation was necessary for defense.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  14. #13

    Default

    I would say it is morally justifiable if it makes the country freer. If I lived in Mexico I would welcome the United States taking the country over. Once it is understood to be moral, I think it becomes a cost/benefit analysis.

    edit: What is funny is I just skimmed the answers and didn't read the original post and it says almost the exact same thing I just said.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 09-06-2017 at 05:32 PM.

  15. #14

    Default

    If I claim it , never . If someone else claims it and I want it , probably as long as it provides freedom and economic incentive .

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No people rules itself; it's always one group ruling another. "Self-rule" a euphemism for the ruling group being of local origin.

    That aside, as for another example, how about the US annexing Mexican territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo?

    Those territories didn't join voluntarily, nor (I think) would anyone make the argument that their annexation was necessary for defense.
    The theoretical justification for the US annexing Mexican territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was retribution for wrongs, whether Mexico committed the alleged wrongs and whether the compensation was proportionate are historically debatable as was Mexico's claim to large portions of the territory in the first place since much of it had never been settled or subdued by them, and then there is the question of the Natives claims to the territory which immediately brings up the questions of barbarians vs. civilization and nomads vs. sedentary societies, it is also complex because different tribes were at different levels of barbarism and nomadism.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #16

    Default

    Forget Hidalgo, we've annexed Mexico. Their government's just a vassal of our CIA/DEA/ICE. All the more reason not to give a damn about our borders, because we can't respect them ourselves. I can count the countries USG haven't annexed one handed, and I'll probably run out of countries before fingers.
    If freedom isn't free, it isn't liberty - its license.


    Look deep into
    my eyes blue
    You must understand
    Remember that all people
    will in future leave
    The Night will come
    I give you your heritage
    If you want
    it will not leave
    Heavy it weighs
    Remember, do not take
    more than you can carry


  18. #17

    Default

    The annexation of Texas was justified, but it was certainly not peaceful. The Whigs warned that annexation would lead to war, which it did.
    Castle/Bradley 2016

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The theoretical justification for the US annexing Mexican territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was retribution for wrongs, whether Mexico committed the alleged wrongs and whether the compensation was proportionate are historically debatable as was Mexico's claim to large portions of the territory in the first place since much of it had never been settled or subdued by them, and then there is the question of the Natives claims to the territory which immediately brings up the questions of barbarians vs. civilization and nomads vs. sedentary societies, it is also complex because different tribes were at different levels of barbarism and nomadism.
    Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

    Earlier you said:

    As to the legitimacy of nearly all extant nations all I can say is that we may be able to learn from the past but we can't change it, any attempt to judge more than the worst cases will founder for want of contextual understanding of the circumstances and the level of enlightenment of those who lived in those times.
    You mean that, even if an annexation was unjust, it would be unjust to reverse it?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

    Earlier you said:



    You mean that, even if an annexation was unjust, it would be unjust to reverse it?
    That depends on how much time has passed, and how many people are still alive that were involved.

    I will no more agree to give the southwest back to Mexico or the Indians than I will pay "reparations" to the blacks, nor would I expect Italians to pay reparations for the crimes of Rome against the Celts and Germans.

    Questions like Northern Ireland etc. are difficult and I refuse to get involved in any that I don't have to, if I was involved in such a dispute I would have to judge it as an individual case.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That depends on how much time has passed, and how many people are still alive that were involved.

    I will no more agree to give the southwest back to Mexico or the Indians than I will pay "reparations" to the blacks, nor would I expect Italians to pay reparations for the crimes of Rome against the Celts and Germans.

    Questions like Northern Ireland etc. are difficult and I refuse to get involved in any that I don't have to, if I was involved in such a dispute I would have to judge it as an individual case.
    I entirely agree that restitution should be limited to the individuals actually involved, or their known heirs - ethnic groups or other collectives can neither commit crimes nor be victims of them. But that isn't the issue at stake here. We're talking about which state controls a given territory, not about transfers of private wealth in compensation for past crimes.

    What is the rationale for a time limit on reversing annexations?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I entirely agree that reparations (i.e. compensation for crimes) should be limited to the individuals actually involved, or their known heirs - ethnic groups or other collectives can neither commit crimes nor be victims. But that isn't the issue at stake here. We're talking about which state controls a given territory, not about transfers of private wealth.

    What is the rationale for a time limit on reversing annexations?
    The nation is a group of individuals, those living several generations after the taking of the territory had nothing to do with it and should not be uprooted or forcibly put under the control of a government they don't support.

    Also there is simply a practical question, how far back in history are we going to go to determine the legitimate owner of a territory? 100 years? 1066AD? 1AD?
    Noah's sons?

    There has to be a limit and it makes sense to draw that limit relatively close to now to limit any disruption of the innocent.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The nation is a group of individuals, those living several generations after the taking of the territory had nothing to do with it and should not be uprooted or forcibly put under the control of a government they don't support.
    Suppose Ruritania conquers the world and maintains its conquest for a couple generations, such that people come to accept its rule.

    It would then be unjust to attempt to reverse this world conquest?

    Also there is simply a practical question, how far back in history are we going to go to determine the legitimate owner of a territory? 100 years? 1066AD? 1AD?
    Noah's sons?

    There has to be a limit and it makes sense to draw that limit relatively close to now to limit any disruption of the innocent.
    That's a problem for a theory based on national sovereignty; it's not a problem for a theory based on aggression minimization.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Suppose Ruritania conquers the world and maintains its conquest for a couple generations, such that people come to accept its rule.

    It would then be unjust to attempt to reverse this world conquest?
    Revolt or secession are different than either the diplomatic transfer of territory or a "Reconquista" war.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's a problem for a theory based on national sovereignty; it's not a problem for a theory based on aggression minimization.
    Aggression minimization would dictate an immediate freeze of all borders at the time that it could be enforced, it would ignore the property rights of any aggrieved groups.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Revolt or secession are different than either the diplomatic transfer of territory or a "Reconquista" war.
    How so?

    Aggression minimization would dictate an immediate freeze of all borders at the time that it could be enforced
    Only from the perspective of infinitely high time preference, which would be absurd.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    How so?
    In a revolt or a secession it is possible that the vast majority of the residents of the area in question want to change their allegiance, while it is possible in the case of a diplomatic transfer I would call that secession if it was, a war of "Reconquista" is by definition forcing something on the current inhabitants or it is secession.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Only from the perspective of infinitely high time preference, which would be absurd.
    Then what weight would you give to property rights assuming we are not talking about the successful implementation of your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    What weight would you give to property rights in drawing the regional subdivisions in your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    In a revolt or a secession it is possible that the vast majority of the residents of the area in question want to change their allegiance, while it is possible in the case of a diplomatic transfer I would call that secession if it was, a war of "Reconquista" is by definition forcing something on the current inhabitants or it is secession.
    So this goes back to democratic self-determination, the justification you cited for the annexation of Texas.. Q. If the majority have the right to choose which state rules them ("their own" or a "foreign" one), do they have a right to choose what form of state rules them, or in what manner their state rules them?

    Then what weight would you give to property rights assuming we are not talking about the successful implementation of your theoretical perfect one world monarchy? What weight would you give to property rights in drawing the regional subdivisions in your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    I don't follow. Weigh them how? Against what?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So this goes back to democratic self-determination, the justification you cited for the annexation of Texas.. Q. If the majority have the right to choose which state rules them ("their own" or a "foreign" one), do they have a right to choose what form of state rules them, or in what manner their state rules them?
    Yes, as we discussed in another thread.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't follow. Weigh them how? Against what?
    How would you weigh them intellectually against all other considerations in determining the philosophically correct outcome to each territorial dispute.

    What weight would you give to property rights assuming we are not talking about the successful implementation of your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    What weight would you give to property rights in drawing the regional subdivisions in your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Yes, as we discussed in another thread.
    IIRC, you said you opposed majoritarianism.

    You're now saying that however the majority governs is just...?

    How would you weigh them intellectually against all other considerations in determining the philosophically correct outcome to each territorial dispute.

    What weight would you give to property rights assuming we are not talking about the successful implementation of your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    What weight would you give to property rights in drawing the regional subdivisions in your theoretical perfect one world monarchy?
    Like what?

    On the aggression minimizing view, protecting property (aka minimizing aggression) is the only consideration.

    The best outcome to a given territorial dispute is the one which maximally protects property.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    IIRC, you said you opposed majoritarianism.

    You're now saying that however the majority governs is just...?
    Not everything we have a right to do is just, I desire to live in a state that is limited by things like the Bill of Rights and I would try to convince the majority to submit to that kind of government, if I could not I would seek to move somewhere that did or to secede if enough of my neighbors in a large enough area agreed with me.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Like what?

    On the aggression minimizing view, protecting property (aka minimizing aggression) is the only consideration.

    The best outcome to a given territorial dispute is the one which maximally protects property.
    But where do you draw the line in time when determining ownership?
    The old saying is that possession is 9/10ths of the law, at what threshold does the other 10th override possession?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Not everything we have a right to do is just
    I would say that what someone has a right to do is just by definition, that that is what the words mean, but no sense arguing semantics.

    I desire to live in a state that is limited by things like the Bill of Rights and I would try to convince the majority to submit to that kind of government, if I could not I would seek to move somewhere that did or to secede if enough of my neighbors in a large enough area agreed with me.
    In other words, it would be unjust to use force to oppose a majoritarian tyranny?

    But where do you draw the line in time when determining ownership?
    The old saying is that possession is 9/10ths of the law, at what threshold does the other 10th override possession?
    You could say that possessors never become owners and allow the de facto statute of limitations to operate (i.e. with the passage of enough time, proof becomes practically impossible); or you could have an arbitrary statute of limitations. I'm not sure that it makes much difference. Anyway, what does this have to do with the aggression-minimization theory? I mean, if your point is that there's no perfect way to determine who owns what, I agree, but what's the upshot of that? Therefore, property is bad...?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-13-2015, 08:04 PM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-10-2012, 10:30 PM
  3. Annex Mexico!?
    By bunklocoempire in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-28-2009, 01:53 PM
  4. Operation: Annex The Media
    By garrettwombat in forum Fox Boycott
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 01:00 AM
  5. Capitol Annex former doctor pays $150,000 to run tv ads
    By remaxjon in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 12:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •