The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

[Nick]

Forgot to add. . .

On the moral issues, I agree with you :>

Racism is certainly an issue of concern in Australia - the laws discourage it, but the government isn't above exploiting it to their advantage. Generally however, most people accept the idea that "Australians are those who call Australia home, no matter how long they've been here".

As for the "conquer everybody, then start earning legitimacy after the fact" strategy - you're right about that too. As you say, the rules haven't changed, but our knowledge of them has. Is supporting the existing states (created using bloody tactics) while dissavowing those same tactics hypocritical? I don't think so - but then I view legitimacy through the pragmatic filter I described above.

Unfortunately, there comes a point when the costs of pursuing justice exceed the benefits of attaining justice. In those circumstances, there is little that can be done.

Steps such as the Geneva Convention, the UN, international economic sanctions are all tools designed to avoid the need for war. They aren't perfect - but the direct costs of war are so great that the dangers of aggressively seeking justice at the international level are inordinately high. People aren't wary of the US attacking Iraq because they like the current regime, or believe the Iraqi people wouldn't be better off in a democratic state. Rather, they are concerned about the potentially massive conflict that could be triggered by a unilateral declaration that the US has the moral authority to deem another nation's government illegitimate.

It's like your schoolyard full of bullies - they know that if one of them takes a swing, they better be damn sure that they aren't going to set of a general brawl, or everyboy's going to get screwed.

It ain't pretty, but then the world ain't all that pretty either.

[Crown]

I really didn't want to post in this thread, however Nicholas, I believe the main contention that Mike Wong was trying to make, if I can assume that I am able to defend him, is that;

The UN did not split the land evenly or fairly. In 1947, Jews made up 30% of Palestine's population and owned only about 6% of the land, but the UN gave them 55% of the land! Arabs had every right to oppose this grossly unfair "partitioning" plan. Jewish property increased by more than nine times under this plan, while Arab property decreased to less than half of what it was.

And I guess that the trouble just starts off from there..

Anywho, if any one would like to know my thoughts on the matter, then just visit the Israel vs Palestine thread below;

http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120

[Steve]

Running to teh mods you jew hating nazi?

Shut that asshole you call a mouth, shitstain.

[Nicholas Stipanovich]

Three copies of one post. . . I blame the server

Anyway, I wasn't intending to accuse you of being evasive with the legitimacy/right to exist thing. I was just pointing out that they are both terms/phrases which are likely to require definition.

And so, I'd like to present my definition of "right to exist":

"A nation state has the "right to exist" if it's continued existence results in a greater net good than the abolition of that state and its replacement with something else."

<snip>

A nation state, by virtue of its existence, is assumed to have the right to exist. In order to remove that right, it is necessary to have a reasonable belief that whatever will replace that nation state will result in a net increase of 'good'.

So that's the pragmatic definition. What about a moral one? On that score, if forgiveness of historical violence is not allowed (since pragmatic forgiveness is essential to the definition above), then you aren't likely to find many legitimate states. But a categorisation that fails to differentiate is a useless categorisation - so I'd consider the pragmatic definition more useful.

Interesting discussion!

Well, I'm not a pragmatist, though I empathize with your pragmatic concerns. From my experience and from my studies of history I've come to the conclusion that any compromises one makes on large moral issues leads to a worse outcome than sticking to one's original position. To tie this in with what I said above, I think that legitmizing despotic nations is a bad idea on both moral and practical grounds. It backpedals on any reasonable moral definition of legitmacy, causing either the negation of the concept in international affairs or an incentive for genocidal leader to kill more people.

Actually, I've been thinking that maybe an ultra-hawkish approach might be better. Simply, we (being those of us in the Western world who live by these beliefs of liberty and justice) should define legitimacy in a stringent moral manner. Then, we should publicly revoke the right of those nations to exist and force the capitulation of their governments by any means necessary. After the fire and bloodshed, those ideals (fundamentalism and communism, mostly) which have caused so much strife in the past several centuries will be crushed. Then, true world peace might actually be possible.

To me, it's a compelling vision. The United States is by far the most powerful nation on the planet. Together with most of the serious runners-up (NATO, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, perhaps even Israel), they are so much more powerful than the opposition that this kind of massive change is feasible. Perhaps, just maybe, we could abolish despotism forever.

[Nicholas Stipanovich]

I really didn't want to post in this thread, however Nicholas, I believe the main contention that Mike Wong was trying to make, if I can assume that I am able to defend him, is that;

The UN did not split the land evenly or fairly. In 1947, Jews made up 30% of Palestine's population and owned only about 6% of the land, but the UN gave them 55% of the land! Arabs had every right to oppose this grossly unfair "partitioning" plan. Jewish property increased by more than nine times under this plan, while Arab property decreased to less than half of what it was.

And I guess that the trouble just starts off from there..

Anywho, if any one would like to know my thoughts on the matter, then just visit the Israel vs Palestine thread below;

http://www.stardestroyer.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120

I agree that the U.N. partition plan can be seen to be unfair. However, my point is that the foundation of the Jewish state is no more unfair (and less bloody than many) than the foundation of most any other state you can name. What makes Jewish nationalism any worse than any other kind of nationalism? If the reason is timing, I think that is hypocritical.