I don’t even understand what the argument is supposed to be on the face. Like what do you mean it has a “right to exist”? Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country “has a right to exist”?
It might seem a pedantic difference, but that does not entail that that central authority has rights, or at least not an unconditional right to exist. One could say a group of people have a right to organize in such a way that there is a central authority IF they do not break some set of rules, like that group of people must have a morally sound claim to the territory they’re going to administer, they must not use that authority to harm others without justification, so on and so forth. The ‘rights’ of the authority are entirely dependent on the rights of the people organizing and using it. Simply stating “Israel has a right to exist” is begging the question in a technical sense. It’s refusing to engage with the qualifications necessary to morally justify authority and simply stating that that authority is legitimate without justification.
Precisely, thank you. The people who form said country and authority have rights, the concept of the country does not. It may be a bit of a pedantic differentiation on thinking about it, but I think it’s important to come to the conclusion that you can justifiedly destroy the concept of a country without infringing on the rights of (and without (fundamentally) needing to harm) effectively ‘innocent’ people in said country.
Then the argument is usually “no, your country doesn’t exist, you just made it up”, same thing they use for Palestine. But you can bring up that Israel didn’t exist until people decided it did and made it up. Then they’ll talk about it being recognized. You can bring up numerous countries that are recognized by some, not others, and eventually the argument becomes “No, it only counts when I, the liberal currently speaking, decide that it counts as a country with a right to exist”.
Nothing its just pure idealism. Half of the countries in europe were invented by feudal lords and are just offshots of larger ethnic groups. Its even worse because european jews claim an unbroken line with ALL of the population of roman judea (not everyone was expelled or jewish in the first place) from 2000 years ago, thats just not the reality, they werent just having a temporary hotel stay in europe and then came back and decided to kick out the squaters.
I mean depending on how you categorize colonial states, basically all modern states are a product of colonization. If we’re accounting for 2k years of history… Are there any ethnic groups that haven’t migrated or expanded their territorial holdings for the last 2k years?
I always found it funny that people accept a 2k year old claim from the Jewish diaspora, but wouldn’t do the same for a 200 year old one from native Americans.
It’s weird remains of divine right ideology baked but not explained in the very core of liberalism. Scratched even minimally it is revealed to be just base and original function of emerging state, that is usage of military power.
I don’t even understand what the argument is supposed to be on the face. Like what do you mean it has a “right to exist”? Can I just go ahead and invent a country and then take over half of Texas, because my country “has a right to exist”?
Thank you, it’s an utterly meaningless concept used only to impose violence on others and claim it’s magically a moral thing.
People have rights, abstract concepts like countries do (or at least should) not.
Anarchist detected
I wish I was as cool as an anarchist, I’m all for a central authority.
That central authority will have territorial claims, and have to defend its existence.
It might seem a pedantic difference, but that does not entail that that central authority has rights, or at least not an unconditional right to exist. One could say a group of people have a right to organize in such a way that there is a central authority IF they do not break some set of rules, like that group of people must have a morally sound claim to the territory they’re going to administer, they must not use that authority to harm others without justification, so on and so forth. The ‘rights’ of the authority are entirely dependent on the rights of the people organizing and using it. Simply stating “Israel has a right to exist” is begging the question in a technical sense. It’s refusing to engage with the qualifications necessary to morally justify authority and simply stating that that authority is legitimate without justification.
Precisely, thank you. The people who form said country and authority have rights, the concept of the country does not. It may be a bit of a pedantic differentiation on thinking about it, but I think it’s important to come to the conclusion that you can justifiedly destroy the concept of a country without infringing on the rights of (and without (fundamentally) needing to harm) effectively ‘innocent’ people in said country.
Then the argument is usually “no, your country doesn’t exist, you just made it up”, same thing they use for Palestine. But you can bring up that Israel didn’t exist until people decided it did and made it up. Then they’ll talk about it being recognized. You can bring up numerous countries that are recognized by some, not others, and eventually the argument becomes “No, it only counts when I, the liberal currently speaking, decide that it counts as a country with a right to exist”.
It’s an eternal question really isn’t it. Hundreds of situations, each unique: Abkhazia, East Turkestan, Kurdistan, Cornwall, Biafra…
https://hexbear.net/comment/4255525
Ultimately it all comes down to what can be negotiated. It takes power to claim rights.
Nothing its just pure idealism. Half of the countries in europe were invented by feudal lords and are just offshots of larger ethnic groups. Its even worse because european jews claim an unbroken line with ALL of the population of roman judea (not everyone was expelled or jewish in the first place) from 2000 years ago, thats just not the reality, they werent just having a temporary hotel stay in europe and then came back and decided to kick out the squaters.
I mean depending on how you categorize colonial states, basically all modern states are a product of colonization. If we’re accounting for 2k years of history… Are there any ethnic groups that haven’t migrated or expanded their territorial holdings for the last 2k years?
I always found it funny that people accept a 2k year old claim from the Jewish diaspora, but wouldn’t do the same for a 200 year old one from native Americans.
Yes, and we should
yes and you should do this
edit: but not stop at half you fucking coward
Okay okay I’m doing it!
Okay. Ahem. I declare the state of HEXLAND
It’s weird remains of divine right ideology baked but not explained in the very core of liberalism. Scratched even minimally it is revealed to be just base and original function of emerging state, that is usage of military power.