Taiwan

[Gillipig]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

[AndyDufresne]

This topic was just a ruse to get BBS to use the term rent-seeking. He's building up a fight against TGD's title defense.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

If Hawaii secured a military alliance with Russia while the US was undergoing a 50 year period of civil war, then sure, Hawaii could become an independent nation.

I don't understand this "right to be an independent nation." There is no right, and independent is pretty much meaningless until place X under political organization Y develops the means to deter other states from entering and/or strongly influencing its own domestic policies.

[Dukasaur]

Taiwan cannot simultaneously have its status set to both 'independent country' and 'province of the PRC'. It is either an independent country being illegitimately claimed by China or it is a province of China currently behaving as if it is a separate entity.

Or, secret third option: there is an ongoing civil war between the CCP and KMT which has yet to be resolved.

It's not an either/or question.

Morally speaking, the Republic of China is the legitimate government of all of China, and the Communists are simply a local insurrection that has not yet been put down.

However, history doesn't much care about right and wrong. In the end, the people who managed to hold a territory, regardless of the criminal circumstances under which they seized it, are accepted as the rightful owners.

Basically, it's just a matter of time. If you steal something and get caught right away, you're a thief. If you get caught after twenty years, people say "ah, those were different times" and depending on your current standing in the community, you may or may not get away with it. If you die with the object still in your possession, your grandchildren will probably consider themselves the legitimate owners of it, and the chances are in the 95% range that they will get to keep it.

There's no great movement nowadays for the return of Nice to Italy or the Shetlands to Norway or Nebraska to the Sioux, because the original perpetrators of the theft are all dead and nobody sees any reason to torment their heirs, and the original victims are all dead and their heirs have (with a few colourful exceptions) moved on to other things.

China is in that in-between stage, where there are still a tiny few people alive who were direct victims of the Communist usurpation, but for the most part they are sitting in nursing homes shitting in diapers and aren't going to make any further attempt to reclaim their patrimony.

People like me who didn't exist in '48 but still remember Nixon's treachery in '72 are slightly more numerous, but we too are on the wrong side of the bell curve now and will be less important with each passing year. So, basically the Communist usurpation is now accepted fact, and young people today refer to the Communists as the legitimate government of China without any irony.

Given the fact that most people don't know or care about the injustice, it becomes less likely with each passing year that the U.S. would be able to actually carry out its promise to defend Taiwan. Thus, the game becomes how best to persuade the Communists to leave Taiwan alone without risking any military conflict. Personally, I would simplify the matter and simply sell short-range nuclear missiles to Taiwan so it would have a credible defense of its own, but here's where the limitations of paternalism come in. The Western powers are not willing to actually let other nations defend themselves. They can't afford to do it themselves, but they still want to be the Big Brother figure. Hence, the contorted positions.

[Gillipig]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

If Hawaii secured a military alliance with Russia while the US was undergoing a 50 year period of civil war, then sure, Hawaii could become an independent nation.

I don't understand this "right to be an independent nation." There is no right, and independent is pretty much meaningless until place X under political organization Y develops the means to deter other states from entering and/or strongly influencing its own domestic policies.

In practice there is no right but you must see how morally a region with seperate culture and a long history of self governing ought to be given the chance to rule itself if it wants to. That's the reason why colonialism was argued to be a bad thing, here's foregin countries with a foreign culture coming in and just taking a region simply because they can. By your logic those actions would be fine, because people do not have a right to independence and self governing regardless of how different they are from their occupiers. Let me ask you this direct question, Does Angola have a right to independence? If yes, why?
For those who don't know the history, Angola used to be the Kingdom of Kongo but became a portugese colony about 400 years ago, it became independent in 1975. My question is did Angola have a right to independence back in 1974 or could no such case morally be made?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

If Hawaii secured a military alliance with Russia while the US was undergoing a 50 year period of civil war, then sure, Hawaii could become an independent nation.

I don't understand this "right to be an independent nation." There is no right, and independent is pretty much meaningless until place X under political organization Y develops the means to deter other states from entering and/or strongly influencing its own domestic policies.

In practice there is no right but you must see how morally a region with seperate culture and a long history of self governing ought to be given the chance to rule itself if it wants to. That's the reason why colonialism was argued to be a bad thing, here's foregin countries with a foreign culture coming in and just taking a region simply because they can. By your logic those actions would be fine, because people do not have a right to independence and self governing regardless of how different they are from their occupiers. Let me ask you this direct question, Does Angola have a right to independence? If yes, why?
For those who don't know the history, Angola used to be the Kingdom of Kongo but became a portugese colony about 400 years ago, it became independent in 1975. My question is did Angola have a right to independence back in 1974 or could no such case morally be made?

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

[AndyDufresne]

If you have power, then you don't have to worry about independence. You can subjugate those around you and expand your realm. That's what I've been doing as Norway in CK2. Iceland and the islands off Scotland's coast, Finland, and Denmark have been subjugated. Sweden and I are friends, since I managed to install my family as the ruling royalty some decades ago.


--Andy

[mrswdk]

Yah, I predict that as China gets bigger and bigger Taiwan will eventually have to cut a deal in which it accepts that is part of the PRC.

As for the point about policy: if US policy says they agree with PRC policy then the US officially recognizes Taiwan as a province of the PRC, which means they are (according to their policy) threatening to send their military into Chinese territory to fight the Chinese army if the Chinese government attempts to use force to resolve the KMT's armed insurrection. They may treat Taiwan as if it is its own country, but that's not what they say and I just wondered how they would actually justify their reasoning in the (wildly unlikely) scenario they they ended up steaming in to fend off a Chinese assault. Basically, their stance and actions relating to Taiwan are full of contradictions.

In the end, I imagine they wouldn't even have to bother coming up with a logically sound argument though. They would just shout 'democracy vs. authoritarianism' and everyone would cheer. It all comes down to their supposed 'moral high ground'. If you have the moral high ground you can do whatever the f- you like. The sooner people snap out of their delusion that morality is anything other than make believe, the sooner world leaders won't be able to pull the wool over their public's eyes by appealing to some bull shit moral sentiments. The only reason the US, Russia, China or whoever get so much domestic support for their hostile actions (or get pressured into taking hostile actions) is because they spin a story in which the other side is 'bad'.

If the notion of 'bad' was thrown into the historical trash bin where it belongs, a lot of international political wrangles would just disappear.

[Gillipig]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

If Hawaii secured a military alliance with Russia while the US was undergoing a 50 year period of civil war, then sure, Hawaii could become an independent nation.

I don't understand this "right to be an independent nation." There is no right, and independent is pretty much meaningless until place X under political organization Y develops the means to deter other states from entering and/or strongly influencing its own domestic policies.

In practice there is no right but you must see how morally a region with seperate culture and a long history of self governing ought to be given the chance to rule itself if it wants to. That's the reason why colonialism was argued to be a bad thing, here's foregin countries with a foreign culture coming in and just taking a region simply because they can. By your logic those actions would be fine, because people do not have a right to independence and self governing regardless of how different they are from their occupiers. Let me ask you this direct question, Does Angola have a right to independence? If yes, why?
For those who don't know the history, Angola used to be the Kingdom of Kongo but became a portugese colony about 400 years ago, it became independent in 1975. My question is did Angola have a right to independence back in 1974 or could no such case morally be made?

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

[Symmetry]

Perhaps the people who live there should decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

[rishaed]

Perhaps the people who live there can decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

You do understand though that most of the people who live there are of Chinese ancestry right? The Aboriginal population is a very small minority, and what isn't Chinese/Aboriginal is probably of Japanese ancestry.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps the people who live there can decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

You do understand though that most of the people who live there are of Chinese ancestry right? The Aboriginal population is a very small minority, and what isn't Chinese/Aboriginal is probably of Japanese ancestry.

I don't understand your point. Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide?

[DoomYoshi]

Perhaps the people who live there can decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

You do understand though that most of the people who live there are of Chinese ancestry right? The Aboriginal population is a very small minority, and what isn't Chinese/Aboriginal is probably of Japanese ancestry.

I don't understand your point. Why shouldn't they be allowed to decide?

It's the whole American morality foundation. If you genocide the natives, then the ones that survive don't have any rights.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yah, I predict that as China gets bigger and bigger Taiwan will eventually have to cut a deal in which it accepts that is part of the PRC.

As for the point about policy: if US policy says they agree with PRC policy then the US officially recognizes Taiwan as a province of the PRC, which means they are (according to their policy) threatening to send their military into Chinese territory to fight the Chinese army if the Chinese government attempts to use force to resolve the KMT's armed insurrection. They may treat Taiwan as if it is its own country, but that's not what they say and I just wondered how they would actually justify their reasoning in the (wildly unlikely) scenario they they ended up steaming in to fend off a Chinese assault. Basically, their stance and actions relating to Taiwan are full of contradictions.

Yup. That's basic US foreign policy for ya. That approach creates more uncertainty, which isn't wise in a region with nuclear-armed governments. (Of course, who knows what the governments tell each other via diplomatic cables and unofficial visits).

In the end, I imagine they wouldn't even have to bother coming up with a logically sound argument though. They would just shout 'democracy vs. authoritarianism' and everyone would cheer. It all comes down to their supposed 'moral high ground'. If you have the moral high ground you can do whatever the f- you like. The sooner people snap out of their delusion that morality is anything other than make believe, the sooner world leaders won't be able to pull the wool over their public's eyes by appealing to some bull shit moral sentiments. The only reason the US, Russia, China or whoever get so much domestic support for their hostile actions (or get pressured into taking hostile actions) is because they spin a story in which the other side is 'bad'.

If the notion of 'bad' was thrown into the historical trash bin where it belongs, a lot of international political wrangles would just disappear.

Well, maybe, but the motivations of bureaucrats and politicians aren't primarily moral (in my opinion, it's more about that vague goal of more security and order). If citizens didn't believe in the moral arguments, then their governments would be less inclined to invent stories to fulfill implicit goals. If the citizens were conducive to moral arguments, but their governments abstained somehow from making them, I don't think you'd get better outcomes either because moral concerns aren't the only concerns of citizens. And finally, most Americans really don't care about foreign policy, so public opinion doesn't matter as much.

So, even if we discard moral arguments, you'd get pretty similar outcomes.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't know how much cultural and linguistic differences there are or if Taiwan has a long history of self governing, but I do know that there exists a lot of cultural and linguistic differences within mainland China and several parts of the country used to be countries of their own. So since mots of China is a mashup of various different cultural groups, why argue for the independence of Taiwan in particular?
To the people who voted for recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, what would be your standpoint if Hawaii wanted to be indpendent from USA? It's located much furter away from US mainland than Taiwan is from the chinese mainland, there are without doubt much greater cultural differences and Hawaii has a history of self governing (Kingdom of Hawaii).
Logically a proponent of Taiwan's right as an independent nation would also be a proponent of Hawaii's right as an independent nation should they want to be. But I have a strange feeling that at least some of the people who vote for Taiwan as an independent nation would be strongly against Hawaii leaving the USA, regardless of how much the inhabitants wanted it. If you're one of those people, you're running quite the double standard in your head.

If Hawaii secured a military alliance with Russia while the US was undergoing a 50 year period of civil war, then sure, Hawaii could become an independent nation.

I don't understand this "right to be an independent nation." There is no right, and independent is pretty much meaningless until place X under political organization Y develops the means to deter other states from entering and/or strongly influencing its own domestic policies.

In practice there is no right but you must see how morally a region with seperate culture and a long history of self governing ought to be given the chance to rule itself if it wants to. That's the reason why colonialism was argued to be a bad thing, here's foregin countries with a foreign culture coming in and just taking a region simply because they can. By your logic those actions would be fine, because people do not have a right to independence and self governing regardless of how different they are from their occupiers. Let me ask you this direct question, Does Angola have a right to independence? If yes, why?
For those who don't know the history, Angola used to be the Kingdom of Kongo but became a portugese colony about 400 years ago, it became independent in 1975. My question is did Angola have a right to independence back in 1974 or could no such case morally be made?

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

[Gillipig]

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

Yes let's ask Puerto Rico, let's ask the indigenous population of Puerto Rico whether they're estatic that the Spanish colonized their island and enslaved their ancestors. Good example BBS!
And you're also missing the point if you ask "Can I find a situation where foreign occupation meant less suffering than self government?", because it's a very common characteristic of new countries to have short term instability. What you really should be asking yourself is, "Does local governing in the long run lead to a more or less stable government?" That is the important question, every nation have their bumps along the road, but there's a clear advantage in the long run with a locally run goverment.

[BigBallinStalin]

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

Yes let's ask Puerto Rico, let's ask the indigenous population of Puerto Rico whether they're estatic that the Spanish colonized their island and enslaved their ancestors. Good example BBS!
And you're also missing the point if you ask "Can I find a situation where foreign occupation meant less suffering than self government?", because it's a very common characteristic of new countries to have short term instability. What you really should be asking yourself is, "Does local governing in the long run lead to a more or less stable government?" That is the important question, every nation have their bumps along the road, but there's a clear advantage in the long run with a locally run goverment.

No, dude. Puerto Rico is controlled by the US. You'd want them to be independent. I'm just saying, their level of 'independence'/occupation is better.

RE: the second paragraph, I think it's more than local governance v. foreign governance. There's plenty of crummy states with independence.

[Gillipig]

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

Yes let's ask Puerto Rico, let's ask the indigenous population of Puerto Rico whether they're estatic that the Spanish colonized their island and enslaved their ancestors. Good example BBS!
And you're also missing the point if you ask "Can I find a situation where foreign occupation meant less suffering than self government?", because it's a very common characteristic of new countries to have short term instability. What you really should be asking yourself is, "Does local governing in the long run lead to a more or less stable government?" That is the important question, every nation have their bumps along the road, but there's a clear advantage in the long run with a locally run goverment.

No, dude. Puerto Rico is controlled by the US. You'd want them to be independent. I'm just saying, their level of 'independence'/occupation is better.

RE: the second paragraph, I think it's more than local governance v. foreign governance. There's plenty of crummy states with independence.

You are surprisngly thick, don't you see the irony in praising the decent rule of a foreign occupier in a country that was desimated by previous foreign occupiers? It should be clear to anyone that foreign rulers have not been kind to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. So unkind as it happens that less than 1% of the population is of native american ancestry. Almost all the inhabitans are foreign invaders, it turned out good for the invaders just like in many other places but the foreign rulers have been really bad for the people that used to live there. So when you are praising foreigners ability to rule the country, you must be ignoring their inability to properly rule over the real indigenous population, and instead refer to how they treat other invaders who happen to have set their foot on the land a short period of time before them. There should be no doubt in any sane human beings mind that in the long run it's better for people to be ruled by their own people than by foreigners.

[AndyDufresne]

Go Quebec! Secede! Throw off the shackles of your oppressors!


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Rights of nations is a normative thing. People say that so they can feel better about (1) taking countries (colonization) or (2) allowing for self-determination. It cuts both ways. Honestly, I don't care for it. I'm not taking a normative stance, but if you push me on it, sure, I like some secession.

It's not that "Angola has a right to independence." Either some military dictatorship or a magical democracy develops in Angola, or it doesn't. If you want to insist on its right to independence, then that pretty much rubber stamps any form of independence--e.g. dictatorship. Who's becoming independent? The people living in the country, or the country from its former ruler?

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

Yes let's ask Puerto Rico, let's ask the indigenous population of Puerto Rico whether they're estatic that the Spanish colonized their island and enslaved their ancestors. Good example BBS!
And you're also missing the point if you ask "Can I find a situation where foreign occupation meant less suffering than self government?", because it's a very common characteristic of new countries to have short term instability. What you really should be asking yourself is, "Does local governing in the long run lead to a more or less stable government?" That is the important question, every nation have their bumps along the road, but there's a clear advantage in the long run with a locally run goverment.

No, dude. Puerto Rico is controlled by the US. You'd want them to be independent. I'm just saying, their level of 'independence'/occupation is better.

RE: the second paragraph, I think it's more than local governance v. foreign governance. There's plenty of crummy states with independence.

You are surprisngly thick, don't you see the irony in praising the decent rule of a foreign occupier in a country that was desimated by previous foreign occupiers? It should be clear to anyone that foreign rulers have not been kind to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. So unkind as it happens that less than 1% of the population is of native american ancestry. Almost all the inhabitans are foreign invaders, it turned out good for the invaders just like in many other places but the foreign rulers have been really bad for the people that used to live there. So when you are praising foreigners ability to rule the country, you must be ignoring their inability to properly rule over the real indigenous population, and instead refer to how they treat other invaders who happen to have set their foot on the land a short period of time before them. There should be no doubt in any sane human beings mind that in the long run it's better for people to be ruled by their own people than by foreigners.

You're quick to jump to conclusions about me. I'd suggest rereading what I've been saying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Go Quebec! Secede! Throw off the shackles of your oppressors!


--Andy

Yes! Self-determination, independence, for the people and for myself! Long live poutine! Long live Quebec fries!

[Gillipig]

The country from it's former rulers of course, by your definition of independence people are never free as long as there's a governing body. I don't see the point with arguing about such semantics, a nation neccesarily restricts personal freedom to an extent that you can't say people are completely free or "independent". The reason behind arguing for the independence of any antion can't be to provide it's inhabitants with complete independence, as it cannot do that while still being a nation, but there really is a difference between on one hand being controlled by the people around you, people who you are apart of, and on the other hand being controlled by people of a different culture and who live far away from you and your concerns. What is better I ask you, that the governing body is of the same culture and live in the same region as it's inhabitans or that it is does not?

Ask Puerto Rico.

It's not always the case that living under a local dictatorship (thus being 'independent') is better than being occupied by foreigners.

Yes let's ask Puerto Rico, let's ask the indigenous population of Puerto Rico whether they're estatic that the Spanish colonized their island and enslaved their ancestors. Good example BBS!
And you're also missing the point if you ask "Can I find a situation where foreign occupation meant less suffering than self government?", because it's a very common characteristic of new countries to have short term instability. What you really should be asking yourself is, "Does local governing in the long run lead to a more or less stable government?" That is the important question, every nation have their bumps along the road, but there's a clear advantage in the long run with a locally run goverment.

No, dude. Puerto Rico is controlled by the US. You'd want them to be independent. I'm just saying, their level of 'independence'/occupation is better.

RE: the second paragraph, I think it's more than local governance v. foreign governance. There's plenty of crummy states with independence.

You are surprisngly thick, don't you see the irony in praising the decent rule of a foreign occupier in a country that was desimated by previous foreign occupiers? It should be clear to anyone that foreign rulers have not been kind to the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. So unkind as it happens that less than 1% of the population is of native american ancestry. Almost all the inhabitans are foreign invaders, it turned out good for the invaders just like in many other places but the foreign rulers have been really bad for the people that used to live there. So when you are praising foreigners ability to rule the country, you must be ignoring their inability to properly rule over the real indigenous population, and instead refer to how they treat other invaders who happen to have set their foot on the land a short period of time before them. There should be no doubt in any sane human beings mind that in the long run it's better for people to be ruled by their own people than by foreigners.

You're quick to jump to conclusions about me. I'd suggest rereading what I've been saying.

Well I have, maybe that's the problem.

[mrswdk]

Big and united will always beat small and divided.

[mrswdk]

Perhaps the people who live there can decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

You do understand though that most of the people who live there are of Chinese ancestry right? The Aboriginal population is a very small minority, and what isn't Chinese/Aboriginal is probably of Japanese ancestry.

They are Han Chinese, they speak Mandarin Chinese and they call themselves the 'Republic of China'. They are not 'of Chinese ancestry', they are Chinese.

[rishaed]

Perhaps the people who live there can decide, although that would annoy China immensely.

You do understand though that most of the people who live there are of Chinese ancestry right? The Aboriginal population is a very small minority, and what isn't Chinese/Aboriginal is probably of Japanese ancestry.

They are Han Chinese, they speak Mandarin Chinese and they call themselves the 'Republic of China'. They are not 'of Chinese ancestry', they are Chinese.

For some of them maybe, most of them are probably 2/3rd generation Chinese currently. Maybe even 4th Generation. But the bolded is my point. So the Sym ignorance thing isn't going to cut it. And I don't even know if the Chinese/Japanese even touched the Aboriginal population like the U.S. did its Native American population. I think the fact they are a minority is more due to mass immigration than genocide.