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?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us