Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Berkut]

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

I don't think recognising there's a myriad of different local conditions in any way alters the notion that on a broad scale everyone deserves self-determination.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The previous Northern Ireland situation was wrong.

Because inevitably your idea that everyone should have self-determination runs into someone being unfairly treated.

Let's say that a majority of people in Montana decide that they want to join Canada and both the American and Canadian governments signs off. Let's put that split at say 60% pro-Canada and 40% wishing to remain in America.

I'd agree an easy equitable thing would be letting that 40% retain their American citizenship. However, what that 40% doesn't get is to continue to live in their 'home territory' inside America. They would suddenly be expatriates.

If we go with the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination, should those 40% be entitled to a refereundum as to whether their areas (lets say counties) can remain as American soil? And if so, what happens if individual cities in those counties would like to stay in America?

It feels like you'll inevitability end up at a point where not everyone actually gets a right to self-determination. Someone will always lose out.

Where you end up is with the end of the concept of the nation at all. The entire world would be an ever changing patchwork of geographical enclaves, with the entire political process revolving around trying to get majorities to change which political entity they claim to align with.

[garbon]

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

I don't think recognising there's a myriad of different local conditions in any way alters the notion that on a broad scale everyone deserves self-determination.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The previous Northern Ireland situation was wrong.

Because inevitably your idea that everyone should have self-determination runs into someone being unfairly treated.

Let's say that a majority of people in Montana decide that they want to join Canada and both the American and Canadian governments signs off. Let's put that split at say 60% pro-Canada and 40% wishing to remain in America.

I'd agree an easy equitable thing would be letting that 40% retain their American citizenship. However, what that 40% doesn't get is to continue to live in their 'home territory' inside America. They would suddenly be expatriates.

If we go with the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination, should those 40% be entitled to a refereundum as to whether their areas (lets say counties) can remain as American soil? And if so, what happens if individual cities in those counties would like to stay in America?

It feels like you'll inevitability end up at a point where not everyone actually gets a right to self-determination. Someone will always lose out.

Where you end up is with the end of the concept of the nation at all. The entire world would be an ever changing patchwork of geographical enclaves, with the entire political process revolving around trying to get majorities to change which political entity they claim to align with.

That reminds me one dimension not considered is time. Even though some group might happy right now to change allegiances, they may not be happy at some future state. Does the right then deserve to be honoured every time period the mindset changes?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think anything other than 1991 borders is a defeat for "the international rules-based order", the West and the UN.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can propose any territorial concessions and  not instantly be reminded of 1938 Munich.

The comparison to Munich would work if the outcome at Munich was that Germany backed down over the Sudetenland but was permitted to keep troops in the Rhineland.

I'm all for the international rules based order but it's up to Ukraine to decide how far they are willing to fight and die for those principles.  I have no doubt the vast majority of Ukrainians want restoration of all their territory but there are practical questions about the likelihood and cost of achieving that result.  Ukraine may have tough decisions to make about how much it is willing to sacrifice to get everything back.  And just was the West should support Ukraine in its decision to fight and resist, it should also support Ukraine if it chooses to compromise.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But its one of those things were people start with their conclusion (people in Quebec and Scotland ought to be able to secede!) then try to create foundational principles to support that conclusion (ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION!) so you can avoid hard arguments about the practical reality, and then suddenly find yourself arguing for how the Southerners were right and maybe Putin has a point....

I think this is it right here. As a matter of policy I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude a specific polity, in a specific country, for specific cultural/historical/practical/etc etc reasons should be allowed to hold a referendum on leaving or not. I personally don't think it wise for Scotland or Quebec to secede, but I think if the national governments of those countries make a determination that allowing the option is in the best interests of their country, it's fine to do so. It's also fine for people to advocate for and lobby for that to happen, that's part of the process.

I think you can hold views like that, specific to a situation, without having to do what Josq does, which is create an ideal that has never been a norm and frankly would likely cause far more harm, misery, death, etc than the current norm--which is that sovereign states get to decide for themselves if it is appropriate to allow secession.

[The Larch]

And going back to the actual war...

Russians seem to be abandoning Kherson city.

[The Brain]

I think the West should advise Ukraine, if necessary, to leave NATO membership out of any agreement with Russia. Because 1) including it would mean acceptance of Russian suzerainty over Ukraine, and more importantly 2) there is no way to guarantee that Ukraine will be allowed into NATO, so Russia may end up getting the advantage of accepted suzerainty without the negatve of Ukrainian NATO membership.

[Berkut]

Or it might be easier to give up the notion that everyone has a right to a self-determination.

It appears in your last paragraph that you even highlight a place where states should be able to opt out of providing said 'right' for reasons of practicality.

I don't think recognising there's a myriad of different local conditions in any way alters the notion that on a broad scale everyone deserves self-determination.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. The previous Northern Ireland situation was wrong.

Because inevitably your idea that everyone should have self-determination runs into someone being unfairly treated.

Let's say that a majority of people in Montana decide that they want to join Canada and both the American and Canadian governments signs off. Let's put that split at say 60% pro-Canada and 40% wishing to remain in America.

I'd agree an easy equitable thing would be letting that 40% retain their American citizenship. However, what that 40% doesn't get is to continue to live in their 'home territory' inside America. They would suddenly be expatriates.

If we go with the idea that everyone has a right to self-determination, should those 40% be entitled to a refereundum as to whether their areas (lets say counties) can remain as American soil? And if so, what happens if individual cities in those counties would like to stay in America?

It feels like you'll inevitability end up at a point where not everyone actually gets a right to self-determination. Someone will always lose out.

Where you end up is with the end of the concept of the nation at all. The entire world would be an ever changing patchwork of geographical enclaves, with the entire political process revolving around trying to get majorities to change which political entity they claim to align with.

That reminds me one dimension not considered is time. Even though some group might happy right now to change allegiances, they may not be happy at some future state. Does the right then deserve to be honoured every time period the mindset changes?

Hard to know the answer....oh wait, no it isn't! We should just go back to our first principles, right?

All people, everywhere, deserve the right to self determination.

Are they people? Yes!
Are they somewhere? Yes!

[Berkut]

But its one of those things were people start with their conclusion (people in Quebec and Scotland ought to be able to secede!) then try to create foundational principles to support that conclusion (ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION!) so you can avoid hard arguments about the practical reality, and then suddenly find yourself arguing for how the Southerners were right and maybe Putin has a point....

I think this is it right here. As a matter of policy I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude a specific polity, in a specific country, for specific cultural/historical/practical/etc etc reasons should be allowed to hold a referendum on leaving or not. I personally don't think it wise for Scotland or Quebec to secede, but I think if the national governments of those countries make a determination that allowing the option is in the best interests of their country, it's fine to do so. It's also fine for people to advocate for and lobby for that to happen, that's part of the process.

I think you can hold views like that, specific to a situation, without having to do what Josq does, which is create an ideal that has never been a norm and frankly would likely cause far more harm, misery, death, etc than the current norm--which is that sovereign states get to decide for themselves if it is appropriate to allow secession.

Indeed.

I totally get where he is coming from, and being a small-l libertarian, my heart is with the basic idea that people wishes are generally rather important, sometimes even paramount.

But people are humans, and humans are social creatures. We must have government and that government must have power to do anything useful. Therefore, there are compromises to personal liberty we all have to make in order for society to function.

Blanket statements like this that promote one right as some sort of absolute over the necessary functioning of society, especially within liberal societies that endeavor to provide equal voices to all their citizens, are just batty. It's right up there with "Taxation is theft!" and leads to all kinds of ridiculous places.

[crazy canuck]

Where does this group right to self-determination come from?  In normal societies, we recognize that individuals have rights (inherent in their existence as humans) and groups have powers.

We sometimes refer to legislatively or legally granted group powers as "rights" (e.g. the "right" of unions to represent their workers in negotiations with management), but since those "rights" are given and can be taken away, they are only rights in the sense in the vernacular sense of the word "rights" not the legal or ethical senses.  In any case, these sorts of "civil rights" type rights are explicitly granted by some authority.

If we are going to suppose that groups have rights, then how are the groups determined, and how are their rights determined? 

I think that the normal-society concept of rights is probably the one we should stick to.  A philosophy that grants and self-declared group their self-declared rights is a philosophy of anarchy.

A quibble - most rights given to groups such as unions are legal rights which are created through legislation.  Those rights can be altered through legislative amendment, but that does not detract from the fact that the group is exercising a legal right.

Since you later state that rights are given by some authority, I am not sure what you meant by non legal rights.

[grumbler]

A quibble - most rights given to groups such as unions are legal rights which are created through legislation.  Those rights can be altered through legislative amendment, but that does not detract from the fact that the group is exercising a legal right.

Yeah, that's some awkward wording.  The idea that I wanted to get across is that many things that we consider "rights" are not rights in the sense of thins that cannot be withdrawn (aka human rights) and those that are granted by some authority and can be withdrawn by that authority (aka civil rights).

Since you later state that rights are given by some authority, I am not sure what you meant by non legal rights.

The above. Legal rights is an awkward term that i probably shouldn't use, but I am distinguishing between "rights" established by law, and rights that are considered inherent to human beings.  The right to secede does not seem to fall under either category, so I was wondering where Josq thinks that it came from.

[crazy canuck]

A quibble - most rights given to groups such as unions are legal rights which are created through legislation.  Those rights can be altered through legislative amendment, but that does not detract from the fact that the group is exercising a legal right.

Yeah, that's some awkward wording.  The idea that I wanted to get across is that many things that we consider "rights" are not rights in the sense of thins that cannot be withdrawn (aka human rights) and those that are granted by some authority and can be withdrawn by that authority (aka civil rights).

Since you later state that rights are given by some authority, I am not sure what you meant by non legal rights.

The above. Legal rights is an awkward term that i probably shouldn't use, but I am distinguishing between "rights" established by law, and rights that are considered inherent to human beings.  The right to secede does not seem to fall under either category, so I was wondering where Josq thinks that it came from.

Got it.  And I agree.  Rights based discourse is entirely overused.

[Berkut]

Total aside, but I got into this interesting discussion with someone over whether people have the innate right to health care.

They argued that it ought to be considered just like the right to free speech or religion, etc., etc.

While I think everyone should have access to health care in as equitable a manner as possible, such that it looks a lot like our access to education (a reasonably decent quality available to everyone funded by the state in some fashion such that income has no direct impact on your ability to access it), it is clearly not a fundamental right since it's availability is entirely dependent on societies ability to actually create sufficient health care. How can something be fundamental when it doesn't even exist except as a result of human economic activity?

I mean, we both agreed entirely on the practical approach desired as a matter of policy, but it illuminated nicely why I don't identify with the "Bernie Sanders" left.

[The Brain]

Total aside, but I got into this interesting discussion with someone over whether people have the innate right to health care.

They argued that it ought to be considered just like the right to free speech or religion, etc., etc.

While I think everyone should have access to health care in as equitable a manner as possible, such that it looks a lot like our access to education (a reasonably decent quality available to everyone funded by the state in some fashion such that income has no direct impact on your ability to access it), it is clearly not a fundamental right since it's availability is entirely dependent on societies ability to actually create sufficient health care. How can something be fundamental when it doesn't even exist except as a result of human economic activity?

I mean, we both agreed entirely on the practical approach desired as a matter of policy, but it illuminated nicely why I don't identify with the "Bernie Sanders" left.

Isn't it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25?

That document certainly has a number of issues, which could be discussed in a separate thread.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean that's a common political argument point right, a strict reading of the philosophies of natural rights and such that has informed much of Western ethics is not compatible with the conception of rights that involve things that have to be actively provided by government, they instead are typically concerned with the concept of what rights protect people from government action absent proper cause.

"Right to life" means specifically a right to not be killed by the government without due process. It does not mean the government has to insure we never die.

But modern progressives have a different view of what rights are and how they mean, so they use the terms differently. I don't agree with their usage, but they aren't necessarily wrong on any intrinsic level it all comes down to the working opinion you have on the concept or rights, which itself is a construct and not an objective reality.

[crazy canuck]

I mean that's a common political argument point right, a strict reading of the philosophies of natural rights and such that has informed much of Western ethics is not compatible with the conception of rights that involve things that have to be actively provided by government, they instead are typically concerned with the concept of what rights protect people from government action absent proper cause.

"Right to life" means specifically a right to not be killed by the government without due process. It does not mean the government has to insure we never die.

But modern progressives have a different view of what rights are and how they mean, so they use the terms differently. I don't agree with their usage, but they aren't necessarily wrong on any intrinsic level it all comes down to the working opinion you have on the concept or rights, which itself is a construct and not an objective reality.

It is a very interesting development in the law.  Our Charter s.7 which gives a right to life, liberty and security of the person was first interpreted to be limited to protecting against detention and other forms of loss of liberty.  But now it is being used more broadly in cases dealing with quality of life - including health care cases.