Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would it be moral to kill people for wanting to rule themselves because you want to maintain the power to dictate your terms to the world?
Don't be absurd (a fruitless request). No one would or has argued that it would be legal, much less moral to kill people for "wanting" - you can want to your heart's content - to "rule themselves." However every nation has the legal and moral obligation to protect its territorial integrity and the rights of its citizens - unless you can pretend that 100% of those in the secessionist region agree to relinquish their citizenship. And more to the point, a state has the legal and moral right to use whatever force that is commensurate - including deadly force - with the force used against it.
Don't be absurd (a fruitless request). No one would or has argued that it would be legal, much less moral to kill people for "wanting" - you can want to your heart's content - to "rule themselves." However every nation has the legal and moral obligation to protect its territorial integrity and the rights of its citizens - unless you can pretend that 100% of those in the secessionist region agree to relinquish their citizenship. And more to the point, a state has the legal and moral right to use whatever force that is commensurate - including deadly force - with the force used against it.
Parsing terms to avoid answering a question, is not answering a question.
Does this concern legitimize the use of violent force upon a region if it decided to leave the union? Would it be moral to kill people for wanting to rule themselves because you want to maintain the power to dictate your terms to the world?
Of course it doesn't make it "right" per se, but power is actually more about maintaining your own position in the pecking order than it is about enforcing your will on others.
What you suggest is basically like starting with a great job and willingly sacrificing most your job benefits for the "other guy" when he will only turn around and take over your spot... and reap the benefits. Only in this case, you are talking about the benefits of 300 million people, not just yourself.
Look, in the end we are just hairless apes that are generally just smart enough to get ourselves into trouble. If you aren't "alpha ape", someone else will be. Find yourself on the bottom and you will inevitably get the sh!#-end of the stick.
Does this concern legitimize the use of violent force upon a region if it decided to leave the union?
Yes. The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, authorizes the POTUS, Commander in Chief, to put down rebellions. George Washington did it in 1791. Abraham Lincoln did it in 1861. Whoever is POTUS at the time would do if it happened in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
Would it be moral to kill people for wanting to rule themselves because you want to maintain the power to dictate your terms to the world?
Countries don't operate on some "moral" law, although if they did, isn't self-preservation a moral reason for killing? As I said in my original post in this thread, allowing secession is sanctioning national suicide.
Yes. The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, authorizes the POTUS, Commander in Chief, to put down rebellions. George Washington did it in 1791. Abraham Lincoln did it in 1861. Whoever is POTUS at the time would do if it happened in the future.
Countries don't operate on some "moral" law, although if they did, isn't self-preservation a moral reason for killing? As I said in my original post in this thread, allowing secession is sanctioning national suicide.
Either reply to the posts that I direct at you, and address those points, or don't reply at all.
Parsing terms to avoid answering a question, is not answering a question.
Parsing? Avoiding the question?!?!
You ask these ridiculously worded open ended vacuous questions and then you whine that the response was judiciously thought out!
So let's try to answer the question so that even a 4 year old can understand the answer:
Would it be moral to kill people for wanting to rule themselves because you want to maintain the power to dictate your terms to the world?
It is immoral to kill anyone for WANTING to seceded.
It is immoral to kill anyone for WANTING to overthrow the government.
It is immoral to even kill someone for WANTING to kill another.
WANTING is THINKING and thinking whatever you wish to think IS your inalienable right.
You can even advocate secession,
You can even advocate the overthrow of the government,
But when someone acts with force or violence to secede, overthrow the government or killing another it is very much so moral, for any sovereign nation to use such force and violence necessary to prevent such acts.
Of course it doesn't make it "right" per se, but power is actually more about maintaining your own position in the pecking order than it is about enforcing your will on others.
What you suggest is basically like starting with a great job and willingly sacrificing most your job benefits for the "other guy" when he will only turn around and take over your spot... and reap the benefits. Only in this case, you are talking about the benefits of 300 million people, not just yourself.
Look, in the end we are just hairless apes that are generally just smart enough to get ourselves into trouble. If you aren't "alpha ape", someone else will be. Find yourself on the bottom and you will inevitably get the sh!#-end of the stick.
That's nature for ya!
Thank god. A poster who is against secession, and willing to be honest about their views, good on you for being consistent.
A few points, as America declines, and it is doing so, it is less and less like a great job. Also, this is not a new guy wanting to join, we are talking about someone who wants out under their own volition. You would assume that in the case of peaceful secession, a deal would be struck with the old state/new country.
Regardless, I still feel it is wrong to murder your neighbors even if it is the only way to maintain alpha position in the world.
A Republic of California would only come into existence if the rest of the country, or at least the federal gov't, became too conservative for them.
If China decided to annex California at that point, many Americans would say, you can have it! And China would find themselves taking on enormous pension obligations and deficits, a lazy, under performing, unionized work force, and many many social problems brought on by excessive liberal policies.
California has something like a half trillion dollars in pension obligations and no particular way to pay for them. I think it would be great if California split off, or alternatively, if some of the rest of the country split off so as to avoid becoming impoverished by bailing out an excessively generous state.
Mark my words, there will be no violence when the secession happens. People aren't going to war if it means taking on more debt. If, as several anti-secession liberals have claimed in this thread, the "red" states are takers, then why not let them go? More money for the rest of you, and everyone's happy. Those little liberal enclaves within red regions, like for example Austin in Texas or Tucson and Flagstaff in Arizona, can just stay with the rest of the country, as West Berlin did when surrounded by the Communists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
