2012=1860?

[Slargos]

Why do you love Milosevic, Slargos?

But seriously, I've always found self-determination to be something of a bottomless pit.  It claims to have moral backing, but it fails in two respects:

1)its ultimate outcome is anarchy.  A planet full of city-states--as trust and mutuality erode, subordinate polities remove themselves from the nation, either because they feel it's best for them, or because they feel that others plan on betraying them first.
2)it is an unforgivable abdication of the government's responsibility to protect its loyal citizens.

My feelings on the Serbs are mixed.

On the one hand, they're Slavs and as we all know all Slavs must be purged with hellfire.

Oh the other hand, they are the enemies of the Austrians and as we all know the only good kind of papist German is a dead papist German.

On the one hand, they enjoy murdering muslims. Self-explanatory.

Oh the other hand, they are filthy, criminal, minister murdering, mafiosi swine.

To get back to the subject at hand, you make two reasonable (insufficient, but reasonable) arguments against self-determination, but frankly they are also sufficient argument against Kosovar autonomy. The Serbian population certainly suffered from the autonomy. Is this a matter of utilitarianism? The greater good? What if the greater good was served by an independent Confederacy? Even if we consider the opinions of non-citizens when determining this great good, were there more slaves than there were Southerners who felt that secession was necessary?

I'm glad that you made that edit btw, and I expect you to demand Kosovo returned to Serbia presently.

[Ideologue]

When a government is illegitimate or becomes illegitimate, rebellion is proper and at a certain extremity morally obligatory.

Secession is a more limited set than rebellion, and has some problems--say the North had seceded from the United States instead, in protest over slavery.  Given their clear ability to destroy the government of the remaining "United States," they have arguably abandoned their duty to their fellow citizens.

A case like Kosovo or East Timor is more nuanced; there is little hope that Kosovo or Timor could ever affect change over the entire state, so secession becomes a moral option.

The Serbian population deserved to suffer.  They'd been nothing but bullies and Nazis since the breakup of Yugoslavia, fighting people that no one but a Yugoslav could tell a difference between.  Indeed, the Yugoslavs themselves make a strong case against secessionary politics.

[Slargos]

 

What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.

Collective guilt? Really?

How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".

Slavery was not illegal.

When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?

You don't have a fucking leg to stand on, yet you scramble for arguments going whichever direction as long as they suit the accepted narrative and as long as they do you have the support of your peers. Congratulations. Malty will be along shortly and point out that consistency is narrowminded. Minsky will undoubtedly support you with some argument about natural law trumping all other concerns, and Neil will add how evil Serbs are and how they deserved what they got. And I will laugh.

The truth is you and a lot of people in here have moralities of convenience. Anything you think is good goes, and anything you think is icky is out. It's not a double-standard per se. The standard is very one-sided, in fact. Paint the world in arbitrary colours according to your whims.

[Ideologue]

What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.

Collective guilt? Really?

How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".

Slavery was not illegal.

When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?

Moral norms =! laws.  You can accuse that of being an "anything I think is wrong" analysis, but that's what morality boils down to anyway, since it's a purely human construction.  Utilitarianism is the only moral system that can claim objectivity, but even that sits uneasy without some sort of rights regime (which, happily, tends to increase utility).

Slavery is roundly considered an evil, and was roundly considered an evil at the time, but the appreciation of its evil does not need to be indexed with a date on the calendar.

I mean, you used to be able to beat your wife until she agreed to let you fuck her.  Legal = moral, right?

As for collective guilt, we have talked before, right?  I'm Ideologue.  I think Bomber Harris was pretty cool.

[Slargos]

What really cracks me up is how you get away with that kind of reasoning.

Collective guilt? Really?

How are you not defending anarchy when you determine that any population may rebel as long as they determine that a government is "morally illegitimate".

Slavery was not illegal.

When a majority passes laws that outlaw the practices of a substantial portion of the population, and attempts to seize their property, how does that not in turn make said government illegitimate by the same reasoning?

Moral norms =! laws.  You can accuse that of being an "anything I think is wrong" analysis, but that's what morality boils down to anyway, since it's a purely human construction.  Utilitarianism is the only moral system that can claim objectivity, but even that sits uneasy without some sort of rights regime (which, happily, tends to increase utility).

Slavery is roundly considered an evil, was roundly considered an evil at the time, and the appreciation of its evil does not need to be indexed with a date on the calendar.

I mean, you used to be able to beat your wife until she agreed to let you fuck her.  Legal = moral, right?

As for collective guilt, we have talked before, right?  I'm Ideologue.  I think Bomber Harris was pretty cool.

At least you're man enough to admit that you're just making shit up and that "because I said so" is a sufficient argument.

[Ideologue]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

[Slargos]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.

[Ideologue]

What do you think morality is, Slargos?

You're holding an entire people responsible for the actions of a minority, yet deploring me for doing the same. You tell me.

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while you abet murder?

As a Swede, of course, this may be a sensitive question.

[Slargos]

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while your work abets murder?

Is this one of those concepts that will only fit on a case by case basis as you determine it appropriate or moral, or is it a general rule?

Because boy, you're stepping into a minefield.

[Ideologue]

You've implied that mere lawfulness is morality, which is simply a bunch of people (in a democracy, or fewer in another form of government) deciding what they think is correct, either after consideration or in a fit of pique.

Regarding Serbia.  The Serbian government sponsored a campaign of repression in Kosovo, as they had in Bosnia.  The Serbian people either supported it directly or acquiesced and supported their government indirectly, through their labors and provision of taxes.  While I would not argue for something ridiculous, such as every person in the country be put on trial, during wartime they made themselves targets, and their pain does not trouble me much more than the pain they caused others seemed to trouble them, and no more than the far greater amount of pain the people of Dresden must have experienced.

It does move me to sympathy, but when you acquiesce to an illegitimate government and labor to bolster it, is it reasonable that you are permitted to hide behind civilian status while your work abets murder?

Is this one of those concepts that will only fit on a case by case basis as you determine it appropriate or moral, or is it a general rule?

I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes.  Conduct-wise, they tend to largely (though not entirely) conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not, e.g. Saudi Arabia.

[Slargos]

I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes.  Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.

And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?

[Ideologue]

I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes.  Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.

And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?

I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were?  Or like the Republic of China?

[Slargos]

I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes.  Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.

And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?

I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were?

That too, sure, but more specifically for instance tribal or religious power structures within a state.

[Ideologue]

I have generalized rules for what makes a government illegitimate, yes.  Conduct-wise, they tend to largely conform with ius cogens norms, although structurally speaking, international law recognizes governments as legitimate which I do not.

And does this only apply to formal governments, or also informal ones?

I suppose both, although if you might clarify, I could answer better.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by informal governments--a statelike entity like the Khmer Rouge or Viet Minh were?

That too, sure, but more specifically for instance tribal or religious power structures within a state.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but an example would be helpful here.  I think you might mean something like Iraq?  I suppose if you mean an entity which is capable of exercising organized violence, then that entity is also beholden to the same moral analysis, and its members or those whom it claims to represent, by acquiescence, also acquiesce to being identified with the enemy.

Or you might mean, "what do you do in the case of a civil war, especially one largely fought through guerilla combat?", ala Vietnam, in which case I suppose my answer is "identify the enemy and generally err on the side of caution."  Was My Lai a war crime?  Possibly.  But the Christmas bombings were obviously not, and represented what we should have been doing since the beginning, destroying the North Vietnamese state.

Well, assuming that the RVN was worth defending, which it was not.  The analysis becomes far more complicated when two illegitimate governments are fighting one another.

And do you believe that the board spellcheck doesn't recognize "guerilla"?  That's absurd.

[Slargos]

Let's leave that for a moment. You noted earlier that "the Serbian population deserved to suffer" given that they were implicity complicit by virtue of paying taxes. Was this unfortunate hyperbole, or is it also a generally applicable rule?