Genocide against Russians in ex-USSR republic shortly following USSR collapse

Im not saying it should die out, but it should be moderated and more than just separatist sentament or chauvinism.

You can be a nationalist as long as you don't want independence. That would be wrong.

For comparison, you can have democracy as long as you don't vote for that other guy. That would be wrong.

Nationalism is the right of the people of a territory to have self-determination.

As for your point about democratic federations 85% of votes did vote to keep the union intact. The native Baltic nationalites may have irreconcilable but they were small in number. (And didnt have a massive majority since about 3) of the people in the Baltic States were Russian)

Not in bloody Estonia, and that's the important thing.

To take the example of my own homeland (I am unionist, and yet I believe that if the people of Scotland have a stupid attack and vote for independence, so be it): Scotland votes to leave UK. England votes no, Scotland stays.

This is fair how?

And forgive me for saying this and the stablity of a multi-ethic state of 300 mill should be put in jeopardy for the sake of appeasing a tiny minorty.

"Shut up Estonia, you're small." What a world, what a world...

The other SSR would've likely stayed content if not for economic tailspin, caused by Gorby's botched reforms it gave nationalist and opportunistic self-serveing party bossies a chance to aggrandize themselves they wouldnt have had otherwise. *Yeltsin is a case in point here)

You talk like modern Estonia is a "gangster state". Russia looks rather like that, true, but Estonia has actually done very well for itself.

Meh. it depends on the country...And I'm from a small one.:D

In response to your earlier argument:

Scotland!

Scottish Enlightenment!

Second industrialised area in the world!

Declaration of Arbroath!

No, sorry, you can't be proud of that stuff. You're too small!

I am offended.

No it's not alright, but people will forgive a winner that was my main point, Hitler lost. Stalin didnt...

What a mad, mad world...

Eh, like the US. Britain or Turkey hell even Sri-Lanka has separatist problems are thay all wrong for having a domament majority, and are thier goverments wanting to exert full sovereignty within it;s own borders and thus keeping the nation intact?

The Turks are up against a communist terrorist organisation. The Sri Lankans are up against a totally nuckin futs! terrorist organisation. Human rights abuses in Sri Lanka are wrong and Turkey could display more tact, but the Tamils and Kurds can shut up until they pursue seperation by peaceful democratic means, much like the Estonians or my nemesis, the SNP.

Or Russia today should it split up futher into little ethnic enclaves? On any practical level I dont think thats a good idea, such things tend to have serious long term long term (often bloody) consequences.

Saving lives comes first.

In case you're confused by the threat title, though, independent Estonia hasn't murdered its Russians.

Hell in the former USSR alone there's been some very nasty wars, and other tragic stuff that likley woulnt have happened if the USSR had been still intact.

I actually agree that a loose federation could have been good. I think that as a unionist I am obligated to believe that loose federation for Russia, Ukraine, and Belorus would have been better (and would still be better if Russia cleaned up and Belorus pulled its head of its arse, not that Ukraine is perfect by any means), and some other countries like the 'Stans might also have been better off participating. Nevertheless, the Baltics voted for independence. You can't turn back the clock on that.

Also take a real close look at the guys who took over after it fell, a very very nasty bunch.

Toomas Hendrik Ilves, wanted for electoral fraud and conspiracy to commit genocide!

No, wait, what?

Yugoslavia is another case in point of what can happen if folks get this one volk one fatherland idea stuck in their heads. It can start out with slogans and protesta and end with war and genocide.

For all the mess that was Croatia and Bosnia, one can't really fault the Slovenes. Seperatism is only bad when it brings about nasty war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Illeagal? Says who the Estonian goverment maybe? You cant call the USSR's rule in the Baltics an occupation; it was a full annexaion. The Baltic were fully a part of the Soviet state (whiter they liked it or not)

Ergo, German presence in west-central Poland between the years of 1939 and 1944 was totally legal. It was annexed! It became part of the state, like it or not!

Given the fact the Russians make up 30% of Estonia's population and the fact that most were born there/lived there for decades. This smacks of pettyness. Noteably none of the other former SSR's has done such a thing.

I disagree with Estonia's policies. It's not Apartheid, but it's bad. People are where people are. It would be like Germany and Poland wanting their 1939 borders back. Mcuh as what changed the demographics was a tragedy, they have changed, end of story.

Yes like all modern day Western nations do...:rolleyes:. It should be ponited out the Russin like other immagrents tended to stick together and lived in the smes areas and smetimes formed a majorty in some towns.

And?

Also the Soviets would've regarded the idea to be ass-backward and wanted to Balts to learn Russian instead this was more pracical as the USSR used Russian as an intra etnic language.

I have taken over your country! Now you must learn my language!

That's sure not the behaviour of a country trying to build ethnic trust and a long-lasting federation...

As for Finno-Ugric language groups dying out I doubt the bigger Baltic groups are in any real danger, but for the smaller ones I can only say it happens Welsh is kinda dying out too...

What I think he's trying to say is that Russia has piss-poor protection for small minorities so it's unfair for you to rag on Estonia alone for that issue.
 
Illeagal? Says who the Estonian goverment maybe? You cant call the USSR's rule in the Baltics an occupation; it was a full annexaion. The Baltic were fully a part of the Soviet state (whiter they liked it or not)

You're mixing the legal situation with the "facts on the ground".

In actual fact, yes, it was an annexation -- Estonia was completely integrated into the USSR and treated as another Soviet Republic.

However, the Estonians are also correct to note that this was illegal; the annexation was consummated by force and was not recognized by any other non-Communist country. (1) Right up to 1990, there were still Baltic "governments in exile" in London... tiny, poor, and almost entirely irrelevant, but formally recognized by the rest of the world as the "legitimate" governments of the Baltic States. (2) In terms of international law, the Baltics were illegally seized.


Doug M.

(1) With one single and notable exception. Anyone?
(2) There's an interesting legal question as to whether the current Baltic governments are the successors to those... But that's another story.
 
I actually agree that a loose federation could have been good. I think that as a unionist I am obligated to believe that loose federation for Russia, Ukraine, and Belorus would have been better.

I'd like to see that worked out in a bit more detail before I buy into it. I'm inclined to think that a loose post-Soviet federation would have been no better than OTL, and quite possibly worse.

Here's a single example: are Belarus and Ukraine supposed to support Russian policy in Chechnya? If yes, do they get input into Russian decision making?

Here's another: presumably they'd share a currency, and so a central bank. What happens when Russia's monetary policy diverges very sharply from the other two? This is a nontrivial problem with the euro, but at least in the case of the euro the biggest economy is a bit under 25% of Eurozone GDP. In the Slavic Federation, Russia would be more like 70%. If Russia adjusts its monetary and fiscal policy to fit the little brothers, bad for Russia; if it doesn't, they're sovereign and can leave...

I note in passing that, despite much nostalgia for the Soviet years, there is no support for any sort of re-unification in the former republics. If a loose confederation were really desirable, you'd expect some people to be at least considering movement in that direction. But outside of Russia, this is just not happening.


Doug M.
 
I'd like to see that worked out in a bit more detail before I buy into it. I'm inclined to think that a loose post-Soviet federation would have been no better than OTL, and quite possibly worse.

Here's a single example: are Belarus and Ukraine supposed to support Russian policy in Chechnya? If yes, do they get input into Russian decision making?

Here's another: presumably they'd share a currency, and so a central bank. What happens when Russia's monetary policy diverges very sharply from the other two? This is a nontrivial problem with the euro, but at least in the case of the euro the biggest economy is a bit under 25% of Eurozone GDP. In the Slavic Federation, Russia would be more like 70%. If Russia adjusts its monetary and fiscal policy to fit the little brothers, bad for Russia; if it doesn't, they're sovereign and can leave...

I note in passing that, despite much nostalgia for the Soviet years, there is no support for any sort of re-unification in the former republics. If a loose confederation were really desirable, you'd expect some people to be at least considering movement in that direction. But outside of Russia, this is just not happening.


Doug M.

It's ideology, dear chap! Facts don't matter!

In more serious terms, what I was saying was not so much that the collapse of the Soviets was undesirable (indeed, eagle-eyes readers may have surmised that I dislike Communism), and even if it was, the Baltics would and should still have left. What I was saying that ideologically speaking I do think that nations withs trong historical and cultural ties ought to make and preserve unions among themselves for their common good. This is why I support the 1707 Union in my own country and why my wishy-washy ideal AH scenario (rather than my ideal of future) would have Russia, Ukraine, and Belorus in a federation.

In any case, one of Ukraine's parties is "pro-Russian", not to the extent I'm talking about, but pro-Russian, and then there's the Union of Russia and Belorus, which is exactly what it says on the tin, so I'm not sure if your last comment is completely accurate.
 
monistic rant

The right of national determination is in itself anti-democratic because it allows the appropriation of resources out of a democracy and into something else. As a hypothetical example: Aquamarine is the breadbasket of the democratic but impoverished state Blueland. If it secedes, the rest of Blueland will starve because the Aquas will hoard grain for themselves. This is an extreme example of problems of allocation which naturally result from allowing factions to determine who deserves or should be given what outside of an authority actually capable of making an equitable and democratic decision. The mechanism one invests with the power of justice might be the market, the state, or whatever. Though noone accepts them as all equally viable, they are the same variable in the equation, or so to speak, as long as one thinks a democracy should be able to allocate resources on the basis of equity and democracy.

The right of a minority to secede and become outside democracy, is anti-democratic. The subjugation, though not oppression, of minorities is a natural part of democracy. When the opposition party loses, they do not become a law unto themselves. The singling out of cultural or national claims to have special status just leads to a communalist mish-mash which is not internally consistent as a theory.

I do not see why if everyone supposedly has a right to a separate homeland, this is any not immoral in the same way as the imperialist project is wrong. Some people's homelands are naturally going to be shit-tips and some wealthy, pleasant places. The implication would be that some peoples DESERVE shitty homelands.

By all means love your homeland, but do not think your affection has any ethical quality.

none of this really applies to the USSR of course, which needed to die. Apologies for going so OT.
 
The right of national determination is in itself anti-democratic because it allows the appropriation of resources out of a democracy and into something else. As a hypothetical example: Aquamarine is the breadbasket of the democratic but impoverished state Blueland. If it secedes, the rest of Blueland will starve because the Aquas will hoard grain for themselves. This is an extreme example of problems of allocation which naturally result from allowing factions to determine who deserves or should be given what outside of an authority actually capable of making an equitable and democratic decision. The mechanism one invests with the power of justice might be the market, the state, or whatever. Though noone accepts them as all equally viable, they are the same variable in the equation, or so to speak, as long as one thinks a democracy should be able to allocate resources on the basis of equity and democracy.

I believe in the "yay democracy!" theory: democracies are A-okay. An actual majority of people in a territory will not exert self-determination unless they believe they're going to end up with a democracy. It doesn't always work out way, but what does? Therefore the fact that you can have a situation where a people self-determine there way out of dmeocracy and into dictatorship is a flaw with man, not self-determination, in the same way that people can vote democratically against democracy.

Thing is, I don't think this has ever happened. In nationalism, when you have a genuine feeling of national community, Aquamarine will be happy to help the rest of the country. The seperatists in my country base most of their argument on "but we'll have more money!", which is why I, having a feeling of British national community, don't agree with them. However, I'm sure there are plenty of places in England and other countries which would actually be more prosperous if they seceded, but where seceding isn't even mentioned, because there is no historical sense of national feeling as Scotland has.

And why the hell would any sort of breadbasket horde food? A fine way to shoot its own economy in the foot, or, in fact, since a breadbasket's main product is crops, its heart. As you can see, my conception of national-self-determination is bound up in free trade. Both are good things. A lack of both is what leads to imperialism.

The right of a minority to secede and become outside democracy, is anti-democratic. The subjugation, though not oppression, of minorities is a natural part of democracy. When the opposition party loses, they do not become a law unto themselves. The singling out of cultural or national claims to have special status just leads to a communalist mish-mash which is not internally consistent as a theory.

For one thing, a nation and a party are two totally differant things. This is actually what democracy is about. Therefore to call nations seeking independence "opposition parties" is just silly.

For another thing, national self-determination actually works on majorities. The majority of people in a territory decide its fate. I again bring up the example of Scotland: if we voted for independence (NEVER IN TEN THOSUAND YEARS!) and England voted to keep us, how would this be democratic? Imagine, hypothetically, that we had always been independent and England just invaded, annexed us, and held a nationwide vote on union. Union wins... just not in Scotland. Is that fair?

I do not see why if everyone supposedly has a right to a separate homeland, this is any not immoral in the same way as the imperialist project is wrong. Some people's homelands are naturally going to be shit-tips and some wealthy, pleasant places. The implication would be that some peoples DESERVE shitty homelands.

Uh, no? Everyone deserves democratic self-determination, which is an end unto itself. Everyone deserves what they need to lead a happy, healthy life. Theoretically everyone shoudl be provided with it by the the magical invisible hand of Smithianism. That doesn't always work, but it's not exactly asthough there are better alternatives. To free trade, or to democratic self-determination. You, in advocating the sudordination of areas less capable of dominating others (the logical upshot of areas which are less "shitty" having states build around them out of more "shitty places") and implying a system whereby everyone relies on their own resources and there is no free trade, are effectively advocating imperialism.[/quote]

By all means love your homeland, but do not think your affection has any ethical quality.

Did I say it did?

none of this really applies to the USSR of course, which needed to die. Apologies for going so OT.

Obviously. Since it is possible to go the Estonian route and secede from communist wreck to proserous little democracy, your arguments that national self-determination is inherently undemocratic are clearly ludicrous.
 
then there's the Union of Russia and Belorus, which is exactly what it says on the tin, so I'm not sure if your last comment is completely accurate.

It's completely accurate. Unless one takes the Union of R&B seriously, which you seem too sensible a fellow to do. Twelve years of "union" and they still haven't agreed on a flag, never mind a customs union or common currency, never-ever-mind a united foreign policy. (Moscow is still tapping its foot waiting for Minsk to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia.) There are "Union" legislative and judicial bodies; they do, well, nothing.

No offense, but the Union just goes to prove my point. They've had twelve years to turn it into something real. The fact that they haven't suggests that they don't really want to.


Doug M.
 
You can be a nationalist as long as you don't want independence. That would be wrong.

For comparison, you can have democracy as long as you don't vote for that other guy. That would be wrong.

Nationalism is the right of the people of a territory to have self-determination.

Nationalist;s arnt always full blooded sepratists.

Self-determination isnt an unlimited right, ask the CSA about that one. If a territory splits off it can have radical effects on the rest of the nation that counts too ya know.


Not in bloody Estonia, and that's the important thing.

To take the example of my own homeland (I am unionist, and yet I believe that if the people of Scotland have a stupid attack and vote for independence, so be it): Scotland votes to leave UK. England votes no, Scotland stays.

This is fair how?

Depends on the circumstances and how much support the SNP had 51% of a vote wouldnrt seem like enough for such a radical change.

Throwing away 500 years of union on one vote seems a bit rash to me...


Shut up Estonia, you're small." What a world, what a world...

I wasnt saying that, but I do feel the intrests of a small minorty have to be weighed against the overall effects on the Union as a whole.



You talk like modern Estonia is a "gangster state". Russia looks rather like that, true, but Estonia has actually done very well for itself.

It's not as bad as Russia but it isnt good. Plus most of it's money in the past few years came things like financial services, Etonia is going be scewed up badly by this recession.


In response to your earlier argument:

Scotland!

Scottish Enlightenment!

Second industrialised area in the world!

Declaration of Arbroath!

No, sorry, you can't be proud of that stuff. You're too small!

I am offended.

Scotland is rather exceptional, but most other small nations havent such good fourtune.:p


What a mad, mad world...

Hey it's true if Hitler had won WW2, then his emipre imploded 50 years later etc, then lot of people would still likely rate him highly because he won a World War.

History forgives a man for being evil far quicker than it'd forgive him being a loser.


The Turks are up against a communist terrorist organisation. The Sri Lankans are up against a totally nuckin futs! terrorist organisation. Human rights abuses in Sri Lanka are wrong and Turkey could display more tact, but the Tamils and Kurds can shut up until they pursue seperation by peaceful democratic means, much like the Estonians or my nemesis, the SNP.


From what I've read the Kurdish commies are no worse than other guerrilla groups. Besides those ''peaceful democratic means'' dont always work if the target of those peaceful protests dont (kinda) play by the namby-pamby rules. Look at Burma or North Korea.

The Kurds have little choice but to fight, the Kemalists in the Turkish Army will never let that territory go without a fight.



Saving lives comes first.

Yep, and millions have died as a direct result of the USSR's fall, and the crap that followed it.


In case you're confused by the threat title, though, independent Estonia hasn't murdered its Russians.

I never said it did...


I actually agree that a loose federation could have been good. I think that as a unionist I am obligated to believe that loose federation for Russia, Ukraine, and Belorus would have been better (and would still be better if Russia cleaned up and Belorus pulled its head of its arse, not that Ukraine is perfect by any means), and some other countries like the 'Stans might also have been better off participating. Nevertheless, the Baltics voted for independence. You can't turn back the clock on that.


For all the mess that was Croatia and Bosnia, one can't really fault the Slovenes. Seperatism is only bad when it brings about nasty war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

Maybe but the Slovenes started the ball rolling on Seperatism I think. The Croats and Serbs wanted to be top dog in within Yugoslavia.


Ergo, German presence in west-central Poland between the years of 1939 and 1944 was totally legal. It was annexed! It became part of the state, like it or not!

Possession is nine tenths of the law once you take a territory and hold it long enough (and ship in some settlers) most other goverments will quietly accept it. (Though they will sometimes bitch about it for PR reasons)

Look at Tibet it's part of China now, no chance in hell that it's ever going to independent nation again.


I disagree with Estonia's policies. It's not Apartheid, but it's bad. People are where people are. It would be like Germany and Poland wanting their 1939 borders back. Mcuh as what changed the demographics was a tragedy, they have changed, end of story.

Pretty much...


I have taken over your country! Now you must learn my language!

That's sure not the behaviour of a country trying to build ethnic trust and a long-lasting federation...

It's simple practicity the USSR had over 200 ethnics groups what other language would/could they all have in common but Russian?

Besides Russian didnt replace the Baltic languages, so the native tounge would be in no danger.


What I think he's trying to say is that Russia has piss-poor protection for small minorities so it's unfair for you to rag on Estonia alone for that issue.

Maybe but they do at least get citizenship, ditto all the other former SSR's.
 
Nationalist;s arnt always full blooded sepratists.

Of course they aren't. Nationalism, in my sense, means nationalist self-determination. You can determine to stay in a union with another nation. In fact, that's how I determine.

Self-determination isnt an unlimited right, ask the CSA about that one. If a territory splits off it can have radical effects on the rest of the nation that counts too ya know.

But of course. I said that seperatism, even democratic, is wrong when it will lead to slaughter and war, and slavery goes in the same bag.

Depends on the circumstances and how much support the SNP had 51% of a vote wouldnrt seem like enough for such a radical change.

This is rather a double standard, since IIRC Quebec stayed in Canada by a similar margin. A result is a result. Of course we need compromise, but it's not like Unionists are going to be opressed in a hypothetical Scottish state.

Throwing away 500 years of union on one vote seems a bit rash to me...

Me too! :D

Nevertheless, the right is there.

I wasnt saying that, but I do feel the intrests of a small minorty have to be weighed against the overall effects on the Union as a whole.

A small minority who form a majority in their own clearly delineated territory is a completely differant thing froma scattered small minority within a nation. Under nationalist self-determination, Estonians are not a tiny minority in Estonia and this is the important thing.

It's not as bad as Russia but it isnt good. Plus most of it's money in the past few years came things like financial services, Etonia is going be scewed up badly by this recession.

Smithian economics shall prevail! *blind faith in the invisible hand*

It has a functioning democracy, which is more than can in all honesty be said of Russia. I don't know about you, but for me, that's a plus. And one can't really label a country a "ganster state" for having a tertiary economy.

Scotland is rather exceptional, but most other small nations havent such good fourtune.:p

As a Scot, I'm going to have to disagree. It's true that we've had more influence on history and the world than Estonia, but every nationality has things to be proud of and cherish, no matters its size and power.

Hey it's true if Hitler had won WW2, then his emipre imploded 50 years later etc, then lot of people would still likely rate him highly because he won a World War.

History forgives a man for being evil far quicker than it'd forgive him being a loser.

True... yet still mad and sad.

From what I've read the Kurdish commies are no worse than other guerrilla groups. Besides those ''peaceful democratic means'' dont always work if the target of those peaceful protests dont (kinda) play by the namby-pamby rules. Look at Burma or North Korea.

They're Commie terrorists. This is high on my list of "stuff not to be". NK is a shithole but does not have seperatist issues (in fact, it has unionist ones!) and I think that all forces for democracy in Burma need to ally, be they seperatism or unionist, until they have by means violent or preferably peaceful done away with the present abomination of a government. Turkey, however, is not perfect but is not Burma. The Kurds can improve their condition, I believe the present amdinistration is making strides in that area, but violence and communist discredit their cause.

The Kurds have little choice but to fight, the Kemalists in the Turkish Army will never let that territory go without a fight.

Recent events have shown, as far as I'm concerned, that the Turkish Army no longer runs the country. In any case seperatims ought not to be the Kurd's goal and I hope that they realise this. It won't help them better their actual conditions. It's not practical. It would cause merry hell in the ME.

Yep, and millions have died as a direct result of the USSR's fall, and the crap that followed it.

This is why I believe that a loose federation would in many palces have been better, but in any case those deaths should be blamed in part, in large part, on the Soviet system and everything wrong with it, including the denial of democratic self-determination. It's like saying that in light of the horrors of Partition, Britain should obviously have stayed in India forever. We were partly responsible for those horrors in the first place.

I never said it did...

What I am saying is that the seperation of the Baltics caused no bloodshed and was therefore morally unfaultable. The behavior of the Baltics to their Russian populations afterwards was not, but that's another issue.

Maybe but the Slovenes started the ball rolling on Seperatism I think. The Croats and Serbs wanted to be top dog in within Yugoslavia.

Miloslevic started the ball rolling by his policies of using co-ercion to take over multiple seats on Yugoslavia's byzantine federal system and thus impose Serbian hegemony. A sane leadership could probably have held Yugolsvia together for way longer and negotiated a breakup without violence and ethnic cleansing which would be better for everyone, not least Serbia.

Possession is nine tenths of the law once you take a territory and hold it long enough (and ship in some settlers) most other goverments will quietly accept it. (Though they will sometimes bitch about it for PR reasons)

While I do believe that self-determination is open to anyone who did not move into an area as a colonist in their own lifetime and the past is the past, I am also adamant in my belief that invading and conquering other nations is wrong and, even after it becomes irreversible, deserves to be condemned. One must always remember that standards of the time, of course. Everyone did in the 19th century and before, just like how everybody treated gay people like shit then: it was a crime, but one can't single anyone or anywhere out over it. But in the 40s., it was simply not the done thing, old boy.

Look at Tibet it's part of China now, no chance in hell that it's ever going to independent nation again.

Alas... Still, I agree. History is history. The Tibetan should endeavour to improve its conditions within China, just like the Kurds.

Pretty much...

Indeed.

It's simple practicity the USSR had over 200 ethnics groups what other language would/could they all have in common but Russian?

Of course people should have expected to learn Russian in order to function in political life (which, incidentally, means that Estonia has the right to expect the same of Estonian). But waves of Russians into their newly conquered territories not bothering to learn the local language is not so mcuh "new civil infrastructure" as "settler colony".

Besides Russian didnt replace the Baltic languages, so the native tounge would be in no danger.

That's what we're disputing. If Russians could just waltz into this conquered and subjugated nation and set up shop without any protection for the native language, there was a chance of the Baltic nations eventually being swamped, which was far from above Stalin.

Maybe but they do at least get citizenship, ditto all the other former SSR's.

True. Then again, they are the indiginous peoples of these lands, whereas the Russians in the Baltics are not. I don't agree with this because the past is the past, but I do see where the Estonians are coming from. They're still wrong though.
 
Nationalist;s arnt always full blooded sepratists.

Self-determination isnt an unlimited right, ask the CSA about that one. If a territory splits off it can have radical effects on the rest of the nation that counts too ya know.
I wasnt saying that, but I do feel the intrests of a small minorty have to be weighed against the overall effects on the Union as a whole.
You are forgetting, that at least formally all the Soviet Republics had the same rights and self-determination among them.
It's simple practicity the USSR had over 200 ethnics groups what other language would/could they all have in common but Russian?
You are again messing things. The point is, that formaly USSR was federation of fifteen member, that had the same rights, and Estonia particuliary was one among them.
Besides Russian didnt replace the Baltic languages, so the native tounge would be in no danger.
Are you sure?
Maybe but they do at least get citizenship, ditto all the other former SSR's.
Look again to my former replies. In that case they had the constitutional right to secede.
 
And why the hell would any sort of breadbasket horde food? A fine way to shoot its own economy in the foot, or, in fact, since a breadbasket's main product is crops, its heart. As you can see, my conception of national-self-determination is bound up in free trade. Both are good things. A lack of both is what leads to imperialism.
It was an extreme example of a problem of just allocation. You are missing the point by focusing on the practicalities because it works just as well whether the resource is grain, oil, or pharmecuticals or whatever. If you believe the variable 'justly-allocating-system' is laissez-faire, I think you would object if Arthur Scargill wanted to set up a Stalinist dictatorship in say Liverpool and secede.

For one thing, a nation and a party are two totally differant things. This is actually what democracy is about. Therefore to call nations seeking independence "opposition parties" is just silly.
If you can not see that nations are created by politics, I think you are historically blind. If democracy is viable to privilege certain people on the basis of them falling into national, religious, cultural categories is wrong.

For another thing, national self-determination actually works on majorities. The majority of people in a territory decide its fate.
This is not a majority, it could just as well be considered a minority. It is a minority trumping democratic rule by asserting a special case: nationality. The nation is determined on a basis which is essentially hereditary and then reaches out over to claim a geographic region, if you think this is compatible with democracy in itself as a mechanism of allocation, I ask you to reconsider. Heredity claims on power belong to the middle ages.

I again bring up the example of Scotland: if we voted for independence (NEVER IN TEN THOSUAND YEARS!) and England voted to keep us, how would this be democratic?
Whether it was or not would depend entirely on what transpires. If Great Britain in this scenario represents a democracy with equal political quality applied to all its inhabitants, whereby Scots are not discriminated against, it would be the Scots at fault. I just do not agree that countries have a right to negate democratic ethic through special pleading.

Imagine, hypothetically, that we had always been independent and England just invaded, annexed us, and held a nationwide vote on union. Union wins... just not in Scotland. Is that fair?
If Scotland were a dictatorship, would that not change anything for you? Would Scotland have a right to remain a dictatorship? The nation would have been free, but not the individual- this is my fundamental point. The unit of democracy is the individual, not the nation.

Uh, no? Everyone deserves democratic self-determination, which is an end unto itself. Everyone deserves what they need to lead a happy, healthy life.
We disagree on what is democratic, and if you are saying:

1:everyone deserves democratic self-determination because everyone deserves what they need to lead a happy, healthy life.
and
2: democratic self-determination is an end unto itself.

you are blatantly contradicting yourself.


Theoretically everyone shoudl be provided with it by the the magical invisible hand of Smithianism. That doesn't always work, but it's not exactly asthough there are better alternatives. To free trade, or to democratic self-determination. You, in advocating the sudordination of areas less capable of dominating others (the logical upshot of areas which are less "shitty" having states build around them out of more "shitty places") and implying a system whereby everyone relies on their own resources and there is no free trade, are effectively advocating imperialism.
I am advocating the subjugation of no individual but the maximum extent of democracy. The ultimate, perfect scenario would be a world state. Resources would be allocated by the people, for the people- on a basis which is ethical, not national. 'Everyone relies on their own resources' is the polar opposite of my position.

Obviously. Since it is possible to go the Estonian route and secede from communist wreck to proserous little democracy, your arguments that national self-determination is inherently undemocratic are clearly ludicrous.
You have completely missed the point and intentionally disregarded what I said: you have used this scenario to discredit my theory when I explicitly explained that it does not apply. In order to have this argument work you would have to prove that the USSR was a democracy.
 
It was an extreme example of a problem of just allocation. You are missing the point by focusing on the practicalities because it works just as well whether the resource is grain, oil, or pharmecuticals or whatever. If you believe the variable 'justly-allocating-system' is laissez-faire, I think you would object if Arthur Scargill wanted to set up a Stalinist dictatorship in say Liverpool and secede.

The practicalities re the important thing, and you haven't actually adressed my point: no "breadbasket" would ever hoard grain. No oil-rich country would ever hoard oil. No country with a developed pharamneuticals industry would ever hoard pharmaneuticals, unless they were embracing absurd fascist and communist notions of "autarky", and of course I am thoroughly against fascism and communism and don't support any seperatist movement trying to establish such regimes. Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?

If you can not see that nations are created by politics, I think you are historically blind. If democracy is viable to privilege certain people on the basis of them falling into national, religious, cultural categories is wrong.

1) There is no "privelage" of one nation over another under my system because all nations enjoy a right to democratic self-determination.

2) With a few rare and sad exceptions such as Austrians, Macedonians, and Moldovans (and I personally believe all of these should one day return to their "home nations"), nations are created by history, geography, and linguistics and remain something entirely differant from political parties.

This is not a majority, it could just as well be considered a minority. It is a minority trumping democratic rule by asserting a special case: nationality. The nation is determined on a basis which is essentially hereditary and then reaches out over to claim a geographic region, if you think this is compatible with democracy in itself as a mechanism of allocation, I ask you to reconsider. Heredity claims on power belong to the middle ages.

Nations are not hereditary: to learn the language, understand the culture, and feel a spirit of nationhood is to be a member. All these things are usually, but not invariably, a function of upbringing. Many people's political views are also strongly influenced by the environment in which they were raied and the political views of their parents. Many later reject or alter these views, but this can happen with nations as well (it happens less often because a nation is inherently a far more inclusive community than a political ideology). By your logic, therefore, political views are hereditary.

Whether it was or not would depend entirely on what transpires. If Great Britain in this scenario represents a democracy with equal political quality applied to all its inhabitants, whereby Scots are not discriminated against, it would be the Scots at fault. I just do not agree that countries have a right to negate democratic ethic through special pleading.

It seems to me that, lacking a strong sense of nationality yourself, you completely fail to understand that nationality matters a great deal to many, most, people and that for a Scotland which has freely chosen independence (NEVER IN TEN THOUSAND YEARS!) to be shackled to a continuing union with England by the will of the English people is tyranny of the majority and undemocratic. Democracy does apply to nations as well as individuals. Until devolution, many in my country resented that fact that this left-leaning nation (further proof that if nation is hereditary, so are politics) was stuck in a union with a larger, more right-leaning nation and thus had governments it has never voted for imposed on it. Having a strong British feeling, I don't agree with this, but many in my country do and there national feeling is valid. They believed that they needed an autonomous government if their "nation" was to have the government it wanted for itself. And if the beliefs of people don't matter in democracy, what does? You expect everyone to ascribe to your scientific analysis of the World Democracy Quotient, completely failing to recognise that nationality matters to many people and you cannot expect them to agree with your view.

If Scotland were a dictatorship, would that not change anything for you? Would Scotland have a right to remain a dictatorship? The nation would have been free, but not the individual- this is my fundamental point. The unit of democracy is the individual, not the nation.

Besides the fact that war is a scourge which destroys all the fruits of human civilisation and should only be used when strictly necessary. What I want, and what democratic self-determination is all about, is a world of simultaneous freedom for individuals and nations based on the fact that a nation is only the sum of its parts and individuals, by exerting their freedom in elections, determine the existence and freedom of nations. In this case, if it was necessary to militarily liberate Scotland, England ought not to take the country as a conquest but instead to allow its people, its individuals, to determine the fate of their nation.

We disagree on what is democratic, and if you are saying:

1:everyone deserves democratic self-determination because everyone deserves what they need to lead a happy, healthy life.
and
2: democratic self-determination is an end unto itself.

you are blatantly contradicting yourself.

This was not my intended meaning. I referred to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in reference to your ridiculous autarkist belief that national self-determination will deprove people of food, oil, and pharmaneuticals, not as a justification for self-determination, which is indeed its own justification.

I am advocating the subjugation of no individual but the maximum extent of democracy. The ultimate, perfect scenario would be a world state. Resources would be allocated by the people, for the people- on a basis which is ethical, not national. 'Everyone relies on their own resources' is the polar opposite of my position.

You sound suspiciously like a communist, dear boy. Be careful. You might find yourself blamed! :D

In any case, what you advocate is unimportant because your belief that a breadbasket country seperating will lead to starvation in the poo-soiled mother-country clearly demonstrates that you believe nations rely on their own resources rather than the mutual benefit of trade.

You have completely missed the point and intentionally disregarded what I said: you have used this scenario to discredit my theory when I explicitly explained that it does not apply. In order to have this argument work you would have to prove that the USSR was a democracy.

Let us employ an anology.

Mr. A: I believe that all swans are white. My argument does not apply to black swans.

Mr. B: But, uh, black swans! They're black!

Mr. A: You have completely missed the point and intentionally disregarded what I said: you have used this swan to discredit my theory when I explicitly explained it does not apply. In order to have this argument work you have to proove that the swan is white!

You cannot create a theory which posits that something is inherent ("nationalism is antidemocratic", "swans are white") and, confronted with a clear contradiction in the world around you, say that it "doesn't apply". True Scotsman fallacy.

You argue that national self-determination retards democracy however this can only possibly be true if a nation determines, by one single step, for internal politics of the new nations are not nationa self-determinations's fault nor concern, out of a dmeocracy and into a dictatorship. A great many cases in the world around us are in fact the opposite, and one cannot use the most brilliant arguments in the world to make a theory contradicted by the world true.
 
Top