The Right of Self-Determination

[TexasRunner]

Hello all,

Looking for a totally unscientific survey to see if people on this forum believe in the right to self-determination or not. 

The Declaration of Independence says: 

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So very clearly the framers were pro-self determination.

What say you?




Some recent examples of US position/definition on self-determination:
Faulklands Referrendum
(Obviously, Brexit)
The UN's Position

The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b).

The US's own position:  U.S. Policy Toward National Self-Determination Movements[/size]

A democratic, rules based approach in which the parties are capable of finding a peaceful solution is always the one to be sought.

There are examples where high emotional stakes, strong identity politics, heated debates have led to referenda where the democratic polities have accepted peacefully the results and continued to live in the previous institutional framework that had been contested.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

People have the right to self determination, without qualification.  Whether or not they can back it up with force is a matter of enforcement, not natural rights.

[TexasRunner]

People have the right to self determination, without qualification.  Whether or not they can back it up with force is a matter of enforcement, not natural rights.

Do you want me to add that as an option?  IE:  "Yes, people have the right to self-determination regardless if they have sufficient resources to self-govern and self-protect".

Thanks for your input.

[former player]

Do you mean "people" as in all the people living in a territory or "people" as individuals?

Because when I read your title my immediate thought was "is this about restrictions on abortion, which prevent women from having self-determination?"  But it seems you are looking as systems of government more generally.

[Dancin'Dog]

Everything is a matter of perspective. 


The haves would likely say "yes", while the have-nots would likely say "no".

[trollwithamustache]

I'll vote for self determination. But I suspect I have a more limited view of what it is... certainly the things you can do will be limited by circumstances.

[TexasRunner]

Do you mean "people" as in all the people living in a territory or "people" as individuals?

Because when I read your title my immediate thought was "is this about restrictions on abortion, which prevent women from having self-determination?"  But it seems you are looking as systems of government more generally.

Correct, I'm using "People" as in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Sorry, I didn't realize the verbiage would spill over into pro-life/pro-choice discussions.  My bad there.

[ChpBstrd]

Self-determination is not the same thing as freedom. The Islamic State, Boko Haram, and the Taliban are fighting for self-determination as described by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the UN policy. Similarly, the South fought for self-determination, but for the sake of preserving slavery and its associated abuses. There are often "seperatists" in most large democratic countries who imagine carving out a fiefdom, usually with themselves conveniently in charge, involving prohibitions on cultural practices that differ from what would be the official line. This is often called freedom, in an Orwellian way. Most efforts to achieve self-determination are actually power grabs. Others involve people working together to preserve or expand their freedom and prosperity, such as the revolutions against autocrats that produced many of today's democracies, including the U.S.

So I don't think an informed person could answer yes or no to the question. It depends on the values of the people seeking self-determination. I'm for self-determination in the context of the U.S. Revolutionary War but against it in the context of Boko Haram. Sri Lanka's Tamil ethnicity? Unsure. The Kurds? I'm sympathetic. Some warlord in the Congo? Probably just a power grab.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

This is timeless

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

[cerat0n1a]

Some recent examples of US position/definition on self-determination:
Faulklands Referrendum
(Obviously, Brexit)

If you stick with British related things, how about Northern Ireland? Last time there was a vote, the majority of the population there voted to remain British. That would be true today too, but maybe won't be in a generation's time, given current demographic trends. That didn't stop many people in the US (including Donald Trump) from supporting an organisation using violence to oppose that.

When you talk about "the people", someone has to define who "the people" are.  Should a county in Arizona or Texas be allowed to vote to make Spanish its official language or to secede from the US and join Mexico? Given the economic situation, that's an unlikely scenario, but it's the kind of thing that has often happened elsewhere in the world. Self-determination doesn't mean that the majority get to trample on the minority.

So, it's a qualified rather than absolute yes

[Jrr85]

I think the answer is unequivocally yes, but the practical question is what self determination means when you have individuals with conflicting preferences. 

I think there should be no question that say California or Texas can break away peacefully.  A bare majority doesn't seem like it should be able to break away, but what percentage vote should be required?  2/3's?  4/5s?

And then there's the question of how big you should have to be to have self-determination.  Lots of cities have bigger populations than Rhode Island.  Should they be able to form city-states? 

[trollwithamustache]

Self-determination is not the same thing as freedom. The Islamic State, Boko Haram, and the Taliban are fighting for self-determination as described by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the UN policy. Similarly, the South fought for self-determination, but for the sake of preserving slavery and its associated abuses. There are often "seperatists" in most large democratic countries who imagine carving out a fiefdom, usually with themselves conveniently in charge, involving prohibitions on cultural practices that differ from what would be the official line. This is often called freedom, in an Orwellian way. Most efforts to achieve self-determination are actually power grabs. Others involve people working together to preserve or expand their freedom and prosperity, such as the revolutions against autocrats that produced many of today's democracies, including the U.S.

So I don't think an informed person could answer yes or no to the question. It depends on the values of the people seeking self-determination. I'm for self-determination in the context of the U.S. Revolutionary War but against it in the context of Boko Haram. Sri Lanka's Tamil ethnicity? Unsure. The Kurds? I'm sympathetic. Some warlord in the Congo? Probably just a power grab.

 ISIS ectl are fighting for self determination for ISIS but not necessarily the people under ISIS who aren't male members in good standing.  Since that everyone else is most of the population, that doesn't seem to fly as a society with self determination.

[Greenback Reproduction Specialist]

ISIS ectl are fighting for self determination for ISIS but not necessarily the people under ISIS who aren't male members in good standing.  Since that everyone else is most of the population, that doesn't seem to fly as a society with self determination.

Which, unfortunately meets the UNs definition of "self determination".... The UNs definition is not the same way we in America understand the definition. Their definition is dealing with the "states" rights of self determination.

I voted yes, based on our definition of the term.... but the UNs definition could be in complete opposition to the understanding of an individual right to self determination.

[anisotropy]

I think there should be no question that say California or Texas can break away peacefully.  A bare majority doesn't seem like it should be able to break away, but what percentage vote should be required?  2/3's?  4/5s?

err what? Don't think so. Here is a "summary":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/


Territorial integrity > self determination when it's convenient to the major powers, not so much when it's not convenient. It's almost never what the "people" want.

edit: voted maybe

[PDXTabs]

Correct, I'm using "People" as in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

So, white male land owners of at least 21 years of age?

FWIW, I voted yes, because I believe that the people are sovereign, French revolution style.

25. Sovereignty resides in the people; it is one and indivisible, imprescriptible, and inalienable.
26. No portion of the people may exercise the power of the entire people; but every section of the sovereign assembled is to enjoy the right to express its will with complete liberty.
27. Let any individual who would usurp sovereignty be put to death instantly by free men.

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/frerev.htm

[aceyou]

Negative externalities make this a really tough question. 

  I should be able to do what I want, provided it doesn't infringe on others.  But the difficulty is determining what constitutes infringement. 

Easy: If I want to kills someone, well that one's pretty obviously an infringement. 

Easy: If two people of the same sex want to marry, well that's pretty obviously NOT an infringement on anyone else's rights. 

But in between the obvious cases, it gets trickier...

Not Easy: Suppose I own a business that emits more pollution than I have to because my profit margins are much higher that way.  Should I be allowed to do that?  I get to keep 100% of the profits for my business, but the effects of the smog get distributed equally amongst the whole community.  So what's the line on this??? 

MANY decisions are of the not easy persuasion, and I think it's a bad idea to create a dichotomy of you're either for or against self determination. 

[GuitarStv]

OK, show of hands.  How many people support the US backed total domination of Palestinian territory by Israel (they police it, enforce curfews, prevent building materials and foreign aid from travelling freely to the country, control all trade in and out, etc.) but answered "Yeah, people should be allowed to self determine"?

:P

[trollwithamustache]

ISIS ectl are fighting for self determination for ISIS but not necessarily the people under ISIS who aren't male members in good standing.  Since that everyone else is most of the population, that doesn't seem to fly as a society with self determination.

Which, unfortunately meets the UNs definition of "self determination".... The UNs definition is not the same way we in America understand the definition. Their definition is dealing with the "states" rights of self determination.

I voted yes, based on our definition of the term.... but the UNs definition could be in complete opposition to the understanding of an individual right to self determination.

Fair enough. These are they same guys that put Saudi Arabia on a human rights commission...

[sol]

As described in the OP, "self-determination" doesn't mean anything other than having a representative democracy.  It means the right of a people, collectively, to choose the laws they live under.

As currently used by conservative media, "self-determination" means government should have no power to make laws.  They want to self-determine which people to fire for the skin color or sexual orientation, for example.

So this question is kind of fraught with (perhaps unintended) consequences.  If you're part of the Live Free or Die set, then "self-determination" means something very different to you than it does to most people.

[ChpBstrd]

As described in the OP, "self-determination" doesn't mean anything other than having a representative democracy.  It means the right of a people, collectively, to choose the laws they live under.

As currently used by conservative media, "self-determination" means government should have no power to make laws.  They want to self-determine which people to fire for the skin color or sexual orientation, for example.

So this question is kind of fraught with (perhaps unintended) consequences.  If you're part of the Live Free or Die set, then "self-determination" means something very different to you than it does to most people.

There seem to be various definitions of freedom. One person's freedom "not to see that sort of thing" is the opposite of another's freedom to marry. Some claim they are not religiously free unless the resources and extortive capacity of the government is used to promote their religion. Some claim that paying 15% of their income in taxes makes them not free, and enthusiastically vote for the person who will reduce that to 14%, which would make them free.

[arebelspy]

Twenty-eight votes, and I was the first "no," huh?

Maybe you all mean it differently than I do.

As part of a society, I think we give up individual freedoms for the collective good, including the absolute right for self-determination. There are times we have to sacrifice that, meaning no, it's not a "right," let alone an absolute one.

A decade ago, I'd have come down very hard the other way.

[bugbaby]

As described in the OP, "self-determination" doesn't mean anything other than having a representative democracy.  It means the right of a people, collectively, to choose the laws they live under.

As currently used by conservative media, "self-determination" means government should have no power to make laws.  They want to self-determine which people to fire for the skin color or sexual orientation, for example.

So this question is kind of fraught with (perhaps unintended) consequences.  If you're part of the Live Free or Die set, then "self-determination" means something very different to you than it does to most people.

No, you're using the typical leftist strawman. In fact, conservative media says, the existing laws should apply to all, regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. 

If you perform poorly or violate your employer's standards, should the employer exempt you from being fired or be forced to promote you based on your membership in a certain group?

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk

[Kyle Schuant]

Most efforts to achieve self-determination are actually power grabs. Others involve people working together to preserve or expand their freedom and prosperity, such as the revolutions against autocrats that produced many of today's democracies, including the U.S.

Oh ho. Oh ha. Oh there is so much here to unpack. It's hard for you, I get it. It's hard for anyone looking at the history of their own country. A fish can't see the water.

[Paul der Krake]

Are we supposed to use current separatist movements to anchor our thought process? I have little sympathy for some of the people of Catalonia and the Basque country who want to secede from Spain, because Spain is a real democracy.

I have a lot more sympathy for the Tibetans and Taiwanese who want nothing to do with the Chinese state.

[GuitarStv]

As described in the OP, "self-determination" doesn't mean anything other than having a representative democracy.  It means the right of a people, collectively, to choose the laws they live under.

As currently used by conservative media, "self-determination" means government should have no power to make laws.  They want to self-determine which people to fire for the skin color or sexual orientation, for example.

So this question is kind of fraught with (perhaps unintended) consequences.  If you're part of the Live Free or Die set, then "self-determination" means something very different to you than it does to most people.

No, you're using the typical leftist strawman. In fact, conservative media says, the existing laws should apply to all, regardless of sex, race, religion, sexual orientation etc. 

If you perform poorly or violate your employer's standards, should the employer exempt you from being fired or be forced to promote you based on your membership in a certain group?

It depends on what your employers standards are.

If your employer is firing you or failing to promote you because you're a shitty worker then no, obviously not.  If your employer is firing you or failing to promote you because you're gay, transgender, or a visible minority then yeah, obviously yes.

[PDXTabs]

Are we supposed to use current separatist movements to anchor our thought process? I have little sympathy for some of the people of Catalonia and the Basque country who want to secede from Spain, because Spain is a real democracy.

They sure weren't the first time that the state tried to destroy their language and culture under Franco. If it isn't okay for a fascist to destroy your language, why would it be okay for the majority of your countrymen?

EDITed to add - similar arguments can be made in Crimea. If Crimea had a free and fair election to go back to Russia, should the rest of Ukraine that speaks a different language be able to stop them? Because Ukraine is a real democracy.

[Paul der Krake]

Are we supposed to use current separatist movements to anchor our thought process? I have little sympathy for some of the people of Catalonia and the Basque country who want to secede from Spain, because Spain is a real democracy.

They sure weren't the first time that the state tried to destroy their language and culture under Franco. If it isn't okay for a fascist to destroy your language, why would it be okay for the majority of your countrymen?

EDITed to add - similar arguments can be made in Crimea. If Crimea had a free and fair election to go back to Russia, should the rest of Ukraine that speaks a different language be able to stop them? Because Ukraine is a real democracy.

What now? Franco died in 1975, and Spain has been a world class country for the last 2-3 decades. Nobody is seriously trying to destroy Catalan or their culture today, they just want them to get over themselves.

I admit complete ignorance over Ukraine (and anything east of Poland really), so I won't comment on that.

[PDXTabs]

What now? Franco died in 1975, and Spain has been a world class country for the last 2-3 decades. Nobody is seriously trying to destroy Catalan or their culture today, they just want them to get over themselves.

That might be true, but every native Catalan speaker I have ever talked to about their language is truly fearful for its existence, possibly because of some sort of shared cultural trauma from the Franco times.

While Catalan is denied official status in Europe, Spain could request the EU that it gets a more limited protection such as the UK government has done for Welsh and Scottish Gaelic.

However, Catalan enjoys no official status in most of Spain, let alone in the EU.
- The Catalan language is key to Catalonia's political crisis

In 2013, the Spanish central government passed a national education law forcing Catalan schools to provide more hours of instruction in Spanish if parents petition for it.

Some see it as an existential threat.
...
In conversation, she uses those two words interchangeably — "identity" and "language." This weekend, she hopes to express them at the ballot box — and vote for Catalonia's separation from Spain.
- For Catalonia's Separatists, Language Is The Key To Identity

[Jrr85]

I think there should be no question that say California or Texas can break away peacefully.  A bare majority doesn't seem like it should be able to break away, but what percentage vote should be required?  2/3's?  4/5s?

err what? Don't think so. Here is a "summary":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/


Territorial integrity > self determination when it's convenient to the major powers, not so much when it's not convenient. It's almost never what the "people" want.

edit: voted maybe

Notice the "should".  That was a normative statement, not a positive one.  I don't doubt that plenty of people would be willing to kill rather than let people have self determination; I'm just saying they shouldn't.