Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Georgia will be taken in a night. What's next?

Rate this topic


Juxtys

Recommended Posts

Maybe the ex-Eastern block nations should form a military alliance of their own. Little Georgia doesn't stand a chance against Russia; but, a real alliance of the various ex Eastern block countries should be able to put a fair amount of resources together. Nukes won't be available; but, Russia is unlikely to cross that line anyway.

No, but Russia is so much bigger than all of the rest of the ex-Eastern bloc that this hypothetical alliance might need them to deter Russia.

I was disappointed when Ukraine gave up the nukes that were stationed in it when the USSR broke up. I thought it could maybe lead such an "Eastern Alliance" and with nukes that alliance would have had teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

America's strength is always underestimated,

Hell, yes. Back in 91 we were cautioned Iraq wasn't Panama. In the 90s we were told Serbia wasn't Iraq. In 2001 we heard how Afghanistan wasn't Serbia. And in 2003 the word had it Iraq wasn't afghanistan (and I thought it wasn't Panama, go figure).

But, I remember time and time again how American tanks out performed the best Russian tanks, and air power out performed the best Soviet fighters.

Absolutely. In fact, air power hasn't been a factor against America since 1983. No enemy I know of as much as sent fighters up. And the T-72 didn't measure up. I even wonder how much Gulf War I had to do with the Soviets throwing in the sponge, as a final demosntration fo how far behind the were technologically.

But then again america hasn't fought a first-rate army since World War II, or even a second-rate one. Let's agree that Grenada and Panama may as well have been unarmed. Iraq in 91 had a formidable paper army, but no Arab country, and that includes outative US allies, has ever had a good army for over a century (and possibly not for three centuries). The Taliban had nothing worth mentioning, even the defeatists ont he left had to raise the spectre of guerilla warfare from pick-up trucks back in September 2001.

If you define the US armed forces as first rate, then the only other one that comes close is the UK's. And the Russians have a long history of fighting badly (both Napoleon and Hitler eventually were defeated by bad weather, bad decisions and adverse numbers). They pretty much throw bodies in front of the enemy to stall him. But they haven't fought since WWII and they dis spend a lot on training during the Cold War.

What I'm getting at is that fighting Russia, even if things don't escalate to a nuclear exchange, will likely be very costly.

Our real problem is that we don't fight all out and we don't focus on crushing the enemy.

That's one problem. The other is that America has half her government and most of the media very publicly against it.

Having said that, I don’t think we should go into Georgia.

I don't think so either. But he question remains: could America go into Georgia? If she can, and the world nkows it, then a recurrence is that much less likely in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, yes. Back in 91 we were cautioned Iraq wasn't Panama. In the 90s we were told Serbia wasn't Iraq. In 2001 we heard how Afghanistan wasn't Serbia. And in 2003 the word had it Iraq wasn't afghanistan (and I thought it wasn't Panama, go figure).

Absolutely. In fact, air power hasn't been a factor against America since 1983. No enemy I know of as much as sent fighters up. And the T-72 didn't measure up. I even wonder how much Gulf War I had to do with the Soviets throwing in the sponge, as a final demosntration fo how far behind the were technologically.

Do you find no significance in the fact that Russia is the largest country in the world and still has access to nuclear weapons, as well as an extremely large military? These are things none of the countries you listed ever had when we were fighting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you find no significance in the fact that Russia is the largest country in the world and still has access to nuclear weapons, as well as an extremely large military? These are things none of the countries you listed ever had when we were fighting them.

Yes, indeed. I've pointed it out in previous posts on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia has no standoff weaponry and their OTH targeting is wanting at best. The US has missiles like the SLAM-ER and the JSOW. Russia has no response to this. All they could do is stand around and wait to be blown up.

The Russians also no longer have a navy. The old soviet navy is sitting in ports rusting, no carriers, no nuclear power ships nothing worth mentioning except some diesel subs like the kilo which would be no match for a sea wolf.

The Air force is also no longer a factor. The Russians still have the SU27/30 and the MiG-29 but again they lack OTHT and have sad missies, sensors and stealth. Plus very few Russians receive more than 80 hours flight training were as each American must have more than two hundred.

Don’t worry about the old stuff the Russian have the US military will do what they do best: placing warheads on foreheads.

PS:As for the Nukes why would they seek their own mutual destruction. Putin is an evil SOB but he’s not crazy.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself [that's his name!] writes rather bafflingly:

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia. Back in the mid 90's Russia sponsored both of those territories in their revolt against the Georgian government. The seperatists are Russian pawns, with Russian passports, taking Russian orders. They don't want independence. Russia wants them to be part of Russia. Which they pretty much are at this point.

An overwhelming majority of these two tiny nations reject Georgian rule and vastly prefer to affiliate with Russia. Don't they have that right? This situation seems quite similar to Tibet.

Russia has been massing troops in S. Ossetia for months now, building their "peace-keeping" force and just started to attack villages on the border. They were clearly goading Georgia into a fight. Georgia was acting in its own defense by entering a territory that's part of it's own country to stop the attacks.

Russia evidently placed troops there in self-defense. The Geogian president is a strong nationalist who has been promising to conquer those two unwilling nations for two years now. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not part of Georgia based on reason and sentiment. It isn't logical or moral to mindlessly adhere to arbitrary borders. The rights and will of the people should prevail. Autonomy and self-rule should be respected for both tiny nations.

What do you call invading a sovereign nation and marching on its capital?

Exactly. Imperialist Georgia has been doing that for 15 years to tiny, weak, and defenseless South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An overwhelming majority of these two tiny nations reject Georgian rule and vastly prefer to affiliate with Russia. Don't they have that right?

There is no freestanding right of secession, so my offhand answer is no, but if you want to build an argument that somehow incorporates an objectively provable relationship to Russia contra Georgia, something along the lines of "this is what makes a nation-state possible, it's a prerequisite, etc." -- a common language, for example, might be an objective criterion -- that steers clear of subjective whims and preferences, that might be an interesting argument. Of course it cannot be agnostic to the question of which government is more just and rights-respecting, so I am for the moment assuming that Russia and Georgia are about equally mixed up in that regard. My point is that you can't just use overwhelming majorities in a given self-selected territory rejecting a particular "rule" and seceding by whim, otherwise the monopoly-of-force principle would be meaningless as individual towns "secede" followed by neighborhood and houses therein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no freestanding right of secession...

I think this notion is mistaken. Tibet today has an absolute right to secede from China if it so chooses. So too Quebec from Canada. And the southern Confederacy had the right to secede from the northern Union in the US Civil War in 1861.

....Of course [one] cannot be agnostic to the question of which government is more just and rights-respecting, so I am for the moment assuming that Russia and Georgia are about equally mixed up in that regard. My point is that you can't just use overwhelming majorities in a given self-selected territory rejecting a particular "rule" and seceding by whim, otherwise the monopoly-of-force principle would be meaningless as individual towns "secede" followed by neighborhood and houses therein.

Assuming that individual rights are respected about equally in Russia and Georgia, or any two other states, I think freedom-of-association rights grant any given large majority the right to secede on any basis whatever. This includes wild irrationality and intensely subjective whim. Individuals have the right to choose whichever govenment they wish to belong to (assuming the new government will accept them).

Maybe this gov't secession properly requires a strong super-majority to be socially moral, but at some point the right to autonomy and self-rule has to prevail. The will of the people -- especially if it's massive and strong -- needs to be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think this notion is mistaken. Tibet today has an absolute right to secede from China if it so chooses. So too Quebec from Canada. And the southern Confederacy had the right to secede from the northern Union in the US Civil War in 1861.

What right based on what values. Not to mention that you’re comparing Apples to Oranges or rather Georgia to Tibet. You seem to be assuming all revolutions and civil wars are created equal.

Assuming that individual rights are respected about equally in Russia and Georgia, or any two other states, I think freedom-of-association rights grant any given large majority the right to secede on any basis whatever. This includes wild irrationality and intensely subjective whim. Individuals have the right to choose whichever govenment they wish to belong to (assuming the new government will accept them).

I think you assume too much. From what I have been reading Georgia in the last few years has been undergoing privatization with support of the US and the World Bank. Also the new government has made great strides in eliminating corruption and increasing its ties with the US and the EU (which rubbed Putin the wrong way). And Russia...well Russia is Russia the embodiment of corruption with a leader who yearns for another cold war.

Maybe this gov't secession properly requires a strong super-majority to be socially moral, but at some point the right to autonomy and self-rule has to prevail. The will of the people -- especially if it's massive and strong -- needs to be respected.

Whoa there comrade! Supper massive and strong majority be damned. Its individual rights that count. If the “super massive majority” may all want free iPods but that doesn’t make it right. This is a mob mentality you refer to and I feel I must whip out the old adage “what is popular is not always right and what’s right is not always popular”.

Not to mention that only 1% of Georgia consider themselves ethnic Russian( refer to the CIA world fact book) and this is only out of a population of four million. If two thousand people in Connecticut want to be part of Russia does Russia have the right to invade the US?

Keep in mind also that the people who are making all the trouble are backed by Russia. By your claim any Schmuck with a few donated Russian rubbles can legitimately break away from a country.

Russia evidently placed troops there in self-defense.

When I read this I laughed. I’m sure Russia was really shaking in their boots at the thought of a massive Georgian onslaught pouring into their country. This is absurd. It would be like the US stationing massive amounts of troops in Florida in fear of a Jamaican invasion.

You seem to be missing the big picture the real issue here is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. South Ossetia is a vastly strategic location and the Russians want it. The BTC pipeline is a major oil artery going to the Med from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field in the Caspian sea. The US and the EU have been helping to have it built and the Russians have been protesting for years about the western influence in their backyard. If the Russians can control the BTC line they will have a near monopoly in the transfer of oil from the Caspian sea to Europe. To think that the good old Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts are rushing into Georgia because they feel for the “poor people of Ossetia” is extraordinarily naive.

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myself [that's his name!] writes rather bafflingly:

An overwhelming majority of these two tiny nations reject Georgian rule and vastly prefer to affiliate with Russia. Don't they have that right? This situation seems quite similar to Tibet.

Russia evidently placed troops there in self-defense. The Geogian president is a strong nationalist who has been promising to conquer those two unwilling nations for two years now. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not part of Georgia based on reason and sentiment. It isn't logical or moral to mindlessly adhere to arbitrary borders. The rights and will of the people should prevail. Autonomy and self-rule should be respected for both tiny nations.

Exactly. Imperialist Georgia has been doing that for 15 years to tiny, weak, and defenseless South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Historically it's georgian land. Ethnic ossetians have moved there from the north. Only reason why ossetians have majority there now is that Russia performed ethnic cleansing in the early 90's and installed pro-moscow leaders for these autonomous georgian regions. Russian invasion has nothing to do with self defence... do you know the size of georgian army? Geo-politically (world's energy resources) this is the center of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind also that the people who are making all the trouble are backed by Russia. By your claim any Schmuck with a few donated Russian rubbles can legitimately break away from a country.

That's "rubles," though it is true that inflation has many times rendered them rubble.

Okay, now that I have let my inner wiseass come out and play....

When I read this I laughed. I’m sure Russia was really shaking in their boots at the thought of a massive Georgian onslaught pouring into their country. This is absurd. It would be like the US stationing massive amounts of troops in Florida in fear of a Jamaican invasion.

Actually, it would be more like the US stationing massive massive amounts of troops in Montego Bay, Jamaica, in fear of a Jamaican invasion--then invading the rest of Jamaica. The referenced troops are stationed in South Ossetia, which is Georgian territory.

You seem to be missing the big picture the real issue here is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. South Ossetia is a vastly strategic location and the Russians want it. The BTC pipeline is a major oil artery going to the Med from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field in the Caspian sea. The US and the EU have been helping to have it built and the Russians have been protesting for years about the western influence in their backyard. If the Russians can control the BTC line they will have a near monopoly in the transfer of oil from the Caspian sea to Europe. To think that the good old Russians out of the goodness of their own hearts are rushing into Georgia because they feel for the “poor people of Ossetia” is extraordinarily naive.

Absolutely correct. A land grab pure and simple, and one that threatens to let the Russians get their hands on Europe's short hairs. Russia had a choice between South Ossetia and Abkhazia as the more important of the two regions to nobly and altruistically support (please note sarcasm) the most firmly; guess which one is closer to this pipeline and guess which one they chose.

Given this it may well be worth Europe's while to militarily back Georgia (they won't, however). It may even be worth our while, since letting Russia get its grubby meathooks on more oil/gas resources can't be good for us. If they succeed in gaining control of part of this pipleline, they can apply leverage against both Europe (the customer for oil, willing to pay Euros) and Central Asia, particularly Kazakhstan (the customer for Euros, willing to pay oil). Central Asia might well fall under their control given that leverage, and that situation would have enormous suckage for us.

A couple of digressions, not really having much to do with the argument but giving some background which you may or may not find interesting:

1) Complicating this issue (in the eyes of the small minded, that is), is the fact that North Ossetia is part of Russia. What happend was that when the USSR decided to pretend to be a voluntary confederation of nationalities, Lenin drew the Georgian SSR/Russia SFSR line right through Ossetia. He *could* have chosen to create an Ossetian SSR, or drawn the Georgian/Russian line entirely on one side of the line or the other, but did not. So both of those "Repubics" within the USSR ended up with "Automonmous Republics" inside their borders that had more in common with each other than with the "Republic" containing them.

2) It turns out (following some research) that Ossetians speak a language related to Farsi (Iranian) but are not Muslim, but rather Eastern Orthodox Christian which makes them interesting to those who find human cultures interesting (and not just appalling 99% of the time).

3) "Georgia" is not what they call themselves, not even close. The Russians call the place "Gruziya," inhabited by the "Gruzii," which apparently is from the Iranian term for them. Anyhow the people in "Georgia" are the "Kartveli" or "Kartuli" and the country is called "Sakartvelo". The language is "Kartuli ena" and appears to be closely related only to some immediately neighboring languages (this is the "Kartvelian" language family), and Ossetian isn't one of those. 3a) You may have noticed a lot of unpronounceable-seeming names (like Tbilisi) there; the Kartuli language has a lot of such "consonant clusters" and contains glottalized consonant sounds we do not have in English. I believe the T in Tbilisi is actually glottalized. On many occasions there are four or even six consonants in a row, and one contrived (but legitimately constructed) word, gvprtskvni, has eight, thankfully none of them glottalized. (Before you point out to me that there are actually nine consonants there, ts is considered a single consonant.) 3b) The Georgians/Kartuli have their own alphabet (actually three distinct ones, but one is by far the most commonly used) with 39 letters for this language. If you've ever seen it, it's pretty outlandish to non-Georgian eyes. It's given the relatively easy to pronounce name Mkhedruli. 3c) The other language family in the Caucasus region (North Caucasian) is even more notorious for teeth-shattering consonants and consonant clusters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia has no standoff weaponry

How many ICBMs in the Russian arsenal?

The Russians also no longer have a navy. The old soviet navy is sitting in ports rusting, no carriers, no nuclear power ships nothing worth mentioning except some diesel subs like the kilo which would be no match for a sea wolf.

True, but not very relevant when considering going to the Russian's turf rather than meeting them in central Europe or the Pacific.

PS:As for the Nukes why would they seek their own mutual destruction. Putin is an evil SOB but he’s not crazy.

I'm not entirely certain Putin is sane. I'm sure he's not crazy enough to go for an all out ICBM broadside exchange (that's the good news), certainly not over something like Georgia, where only his regional ambitions are threatened, not his very existence. But he might think he could get away with using a tactical nuke as I previously outlined.

One thing about nukes is no one really knows what their effect on warfare really is, as they were only used once in war over 50 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one point which everyone seems to be missing here: Individual rights include the right of free association. Individuals have the absolute right to choose which collective they wish to form a nation with, and which government they wish to be governed by.

Often this means they have to geographically relocate to their preferred nation and government. But often times they don't have to move. If the majority is big enough, they can simply, legally, properly, morally change the government. They can politically re-affiliate. They can vote out the one state, and vote in the other.

The best answer in the Russia vs. Georgia war may be to hold a quick, free, fair referendum in South Ossetai and Abkhazi, and let the people vote. Let them express their free will. Let them exercise autonomy and self rule, as is their absolute group right. Let them freely choose what they wish governmentally: whether association with Russia, Georgia, independence, America, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the majority is big enough, they can simply, legally, properly, morally change the government.
So, for instance, if the majority population decides that they want a government where everyone is forced to do three years of community service, and tax-rates are high, then the minority that disagrees have to move? In many cases, this might be the practical thing for the minority to do (witness people immigrating from socialist countries); however, I cannot see why the majority's actions can be seen as "proper" and "moral". Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the majority is big enough, they can simply, legally, properly, morally change the government.

Individuals do not have the absolute right to choose which government they wish to be governed by. By your reasoning, my next-door neighbor could (by a 100% supermajority of himself) "secede" at any time, exercising his own force-monopoly within his house and yard. If he happened to murder a visitor, the town authorities could not prosecute him (because they would lack jurisdiction, because there can be only one force-monopoly in a given territory). Extending this principle would result in a patchwork of "governments" competing for individuals allegiances (like the Crips and Bloods). In short, this idea is nuts.

You seem to have made a common mistake regarding the concept of "the consent of the governed" by conflating necessary and sufficient conditions. One may say that consent (as may be inferred from various legal means, at present commonly relying upon electoral majorities or, for certain constitutional changes, supermajorities) is necessary. But is it sufficient?

The answer is no, it is not sufficient. Also necessary (and more fundamentally so) is that the government to which the majority consents be proper, i.e. rights-respecting; also necessary is that the monopoly-on-force principle be implementable, which means that there are stable borders, i.e. no freestanding right of secession vis-a-vis established territorial boundaries. To put it succinctly, there can be no government when anyone on a whim gets to redraw the borders as they please.

Now, there may be a qualified right of secession implemented within the body of a nation's constitution, ensuring that the alteration of borders be orderly and preserving of individual rights (an example would be the provision of the U.S. Constitution whereby new states can be created from existing states with the consent of the affected legislatures and of Congress), but this is not the same as an absolute right of secession.

What is needed is an application of objective political and legal philosophy to this specific area to delineate the proper requirements of adjustments to a government's territorial boundaries. Saying, in effect, that "anything goes" so long as some majority somewhere feels like it, isn't it.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's "rubles," though it is true that inflation has many times rendered them rubble.

I stand by my original statement. ;)

Actually, it would be more like the US stationing massive massive amounts of troops in Montego Bay, Jamaica, in fear of a Jamaican invasion--then invading the rest of Jamaica. The referenced troops are stationed in South Ossetia, which is Georgian territory.

The original commenter and I were referring to the massive build up of Russian troops on the Russian border in the months prior to the invasion. Hence my Florida example.

However if I was referring to the current state as of today you would be correct.

How many ICBMs in the Russian arsenal?

ICBM are not technically considered stand off weapons. A standoff weapon is usually a missile fired from a moving platform (like a ship or a jet) that can hit a target well beyond the horizon and have COP or circle of probability that is very small. Their warheads are conventional munitions and not nuclear. The missiles I refer to are small, many are launched from aircraft and will have a COP of like a house or something relatively small. Whereas ICBMs are big, and expensive and have COP of like New York. Not very practical for hitting a tank or a radar station. In the realm of warfare Russia’s only option to effectively fight the US would be the use of ICBMs. Luckily our missile defense have made huge strides in recent years.

I'm not entirely certain Putin is sane. I'm sure he's not crazy enough to go for an all out ICBM broadside exchange (that's the good news), certainly not over something like Georgia, where only his regional ambitions are threatened, not his very existence. But he might think he could get away with using a tactical nuke as I previously outlined.

We can tell by the radiation were the nuke came from. I'm sure the US would have previously declared well before we commited troops that we would consider any nuclear attack as an attack from Russia on the US. Just like the Cuban missile crissis.

I doubt Putin would risk all of this for Georgia and its pipeline.

True, but not very relevant when considering going to the Russian's turf rather than meeting them in central Europe or the Pacific.

Sea power is always a factor for a country as big as Russia. If the US blockaded all of Russia’s ports and destroyed their lines of Communications Russia would be in big trouble. Invading Russian troops would not be very effective if they have no food or fuel.

But he might think he could get away with using a tactical nuke as I previously outlined.

The situation reminds me of when Hitler reoccupied the Rhine land in the 30’s. Nazi Germany had yet to develop much of a military and if the French and British chose to repel the Germens they could have easily done so. But the French and the British were using the policy of appeasement and chose not to. Hitler later said the night of the reoccupation was the longest in his life because he knew if the allies had chose to repel him he would be forced to withdarw and he would be out of power. The only thing Hitler had going for him was his audacity and his faith in the passivity of the French and British.

I feel Putin is in the same position. If the US blockaded Russian ports or moved to check Putin power he would be forced to give in. This is a dangerous time if we have learned anything from the last century appeasement of an aggressor only makes the aggressor more aggressive. Putin’s aggression must not go unchecked.

Once again I’m going to use one of my favorite Churchill quotes because I feel it is so appropriate to the situation: "When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong, these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history." Churchill 1936

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refusal of America and the West to recognize the right of the South Ossetians and Abkhazis to freely choose their government and leaders surrenders the moral high ground and renders this important international problem interminable and unsolvable. The intellectual incompetence on this issue is high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refusal of America and the West to recognize the right of the South Ossetians and Abkhazis to freely choose their government and leaders surrenders the moral high ground and renders this important international problem interminable and unsolvable. The intellectual incompetence on this issue is high.
You keep saying the same thing, but you haven't yet explained why the government that the south Ossetians plan to establish is a more moral one that the one og Georgia. Is is more moral? Are they planning to respect individual rights in ways that Georgians don't? Are they all for capitalism? If not, why is is moral? Please don't repeat your earlier claim that it is moral because the majority within that area want it -- morality in politics is not about majorities and minorities, it is about the actual nature of the government in it's defense of rights. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know what Wotan thinks about the fact that the North Ossetians are in Russia. And really, they aren't culturally separate from south Ossetians, they are just Ossetians, some of them north of the boundary between Russia and Georgia, some of them south of it. By Wotan's logic, do they not deserve to be freed from there? Why doesn't Russia, which supposedly is only trying to help the South Ossetians acheive their aspirations, help out the North Ossetians, which they are in a *far* better position to do, not having to fight another country to do so?

Oh, maybe, just maybe, the reality is Russia is simply using these people to grab the pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point, it simply isn't up to me to defend the standard, consensus, undisputed (normally!) political concepts and values of autonomy, self-rule, self-government, majority rule, democracy, political rights, free and fair elections, freedom of association, freedom to choose, etc. Nor is it up to me to defend rational nationalism i.e. the natural, ultra-familiar desire of blocks of individuals to form a nation-state based on commonality of culture, history, language, religion, ethnicity, belief, etc. These ideas and ideals are so well-established and universally accepted by virtually every even semi-civilized person that it's up to the nay-sayers to explain why they reject them. Much of the current debate on Georgia's recent aggression flies in the face of all reason.

On what possible basis, say, do the Tibetans not deserve independence, if an overwhelming majority so choose? The only reason I can think of is if they propose to set up a significantly more totalitarian regime than that of China. That seems wildly unlikely here or anywhere.

Similarly, and based on general principles, Slovakia had a right to divorce from Czech Republic, and Croatia from Serbia, and Kosovo from Serbia (very recently), and Pakistan from India, and all those former Soviet republics from the USSR. And it was the absolute right of the various individuals to unite and form the nation-states Italy and Germany a few centuries ago. And the various ethnic groups of the Holy Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire also had the utter right to split off and form their new governments. It's simply astonishing to argue otherwise.

All things being equal, and assuming no minority inside the new state is being significantly dragged down in terms of freedom, individuals simply have the right to unite and organize as they see fit based on unassailable Natural Law (which governs all of us at all times). Freedom of association allows all individuals -- based on any whim whatever, and however irrational -- the right to join or quit any organization they wish, including and especially government.

I defy anyone here to theoretically explain to a South Ossetian or Abkhazi how he has no right to choose his preferred state or rulers, but rather must meekly submit to being militarily conquered by the hated Georgians. That shit may fly in bizarre, esoteric, intellectual circles -- but no actual South Ossetian or Abkhazi of any sense or rationality will ever be convinced by it. And anyone who tries to force his absurd and empty anti-freedom of association theories down the throats of these two suffering peoples in person is in grave danger of getting what his intellectual vapidity deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refusal of America and the West to recognize the right of the South Ossetians and Abkhazis to freely choose their government and leaders surrenders the moral high ground and renders this important international problem interminable and unsolvable.
There is no "right to choose a dictatorship", and no "right to anarchy". Government is based on geography, not race, and it is immaterial what the wishes of a certain ethnic group are. No ethnic Ossetian has a right to secede from a free nation and impose a dictatorship on any other person, be he Ossetian, Georgian, Russian, Armenian or whatever. The same goes for Abkhazia (insert Mingrelian, Greek blah blah blah). And similarly, Chechen terrorists do not have a right to violently secede from Russia to establish an ethnically pure Chechen Islamic theocracy. They do have the right to peacefully separate from the neo-police state that they are stuck in, within the context of a rights-respecting legal system.
The intellectual incompetence on this issue is high.
I think you are being too harsh on yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...