Should states/regions etc. have a right to secede from their nation-states?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:00:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Should states/regions etc. have a right to secede from their nation-states?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Author Topic: Should states/regions etc. have a right to secede from their nation-states?  (Read 514 times)
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 08, 2016, 11:23:17 PM »

?
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2016, 11:28:52 PM »

Alright, I'll take the first billet: it obviously depends.  Because they aren't being allowed to vote and participate in their government?  Absolutely.  Because they're nervous the inslavement of human beings is about to be upended?  Nope.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2016, 11:31:26 PM »

There's no universal fundamental principle against it, but the conditions under which it is considered just and appropriate ar a bit hard to figure out.   If the people of a region or state believe their interests fundamentally conflict with the national government, there should be some way to secede if it can't be come to terms with.  Should probably require a more deliberative process than a simple majority vote, given the potential disruption.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2016, 11:34:11 PM »

Alright, I'll take the first billet: it obviously depends.  Because they aren't being allowed to vote and participate in their government?  Absolutely.  Because they're nervous the inslavement of human beings is about to be upended?  Nope.

What about Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec or even Tibet?
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 09, 2016, 12:03:39 AM »

It depends on why they're seceding. Are they facing immense violence, actual tyranny, and so forth, like South Sudan or East Timor? Then yes. Are they seceding for the sole purpose of holding other human beings in bondage, like the Confederacy? Then no.

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

With that ongoing mess in the Ukraine, I'm opposed to the Eastern Ukraine seceding because it's pretty clear that Russia is basically invading and using the locals anger at western Ukraine to seize half the country. Most legitimate secessions should be done without foreign soldiers occupying the would-be nation.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 09, 2016, 01:30:04 AM »

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 09, 2016, 05:16:18 AM »

As long as the majority of people in that state/region/etc. support it, then of course!

Why does government have an inherent right to keep people bonded to their rule regardless of what they decide to do? The only argument for it is so that government's can retain their power (something they absolutely love to do).
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2016, 05:29:30 AM »

Yes, if a vast majority supports it, it should be allowed.
Logged
Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan
kataak
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,922
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -4.52, S: 5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2016, 06:39:55 AM »

If state is unitary only after long proces preparing such part of country to secede.
If federation I see no problem as it would be simpler from the technical point of view.
Of course as long as that state is republic. If monarchy I guess only good solution of that problem is to secede that part of country which want to be separate country as some sort of liege country or separate kingdom having it own monarch from reigning family. Although I am not sure if such situation will be legitimate and not against basic laws. This is interesting issue, I should think more about : I
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2016, 06:55:34 AM »

1. "Rights" don't exist.
2. Whether an area does secede depends on the political will of and (political, economic and/or military) forces that can be brought to bear by both sides.
3. Whether an area should secede is something that can only be evaluated on a case by case basis, and is highly dependent on (2): generally the best course of action is the one which minimizes violence and social disruption.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 09, 2016, 08:16:36 AM »

Let's think about this from small to large in the context of a representative democracy.

Should part of a school district be able to secede from a larger district to form a new district?
That should depend on the management of debt and the ability to adequately educate all the children in both districts. It should require the consent of both districts and the state which governs both districts (by statute or judicial decree).

Should a city that overlaps multiple counties be able to secede from those counties and form its own independent entity?
This happens in VA with some regularity to form independent cities. Broomfield CO did this in 2001. Broomfield did so by means of a state constitutional amendment in 1998.

Should a portion of a state be able to secede to form a new state?
There is a formal mechanism to do this through the US Constitution. It requires the consent of the legislature involved and Congress.

Should a US state be allowed to secede?
SCOTUS said that the union is inseparable once made. Any reconsideration would require the consent of the states. Presumably there would have to be a constitutional amendment ratified by the states to permit it, not unlike Broomfield getting a state constitutional amendment to secede from its counties.

Can this logic be extended to other parts of the world?
The above examples were rooted in the assumptions of representative democracy. So, let's consider a European example where there are strong democratic institutions.

Should Catalonia be allowed to secede from Spain?
By extension, this should require the consent of Catalonia and Spain and if membership in the EU/Eurozone is involved the consent of the EU member states as well.

Obviously this chain of thought doesn't have the same application in a situation like South Sudan where democratic institutions were lacking.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 09, 2016, 12:46:34 PM »

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.

I didn't actually know how many Rohingya were in Myanmar, but good to know.

And I get the economic argument, but I feel it pales in comparison to moral arguments; if oppression or violence is encouraged against a group, they should have the right to at least potentially secede from the oppressor nation, because otherwise, what ability do they have to resist said oppressor? Shouldn't the Rohingya for example, have the right and ability to stop their wider society from oppressing them? And if all other avenues are explored and failed, then why not secession?

Again, South Sudan and East Timor are good examples; there's no way they could have gotten democratic rights, so their secession was justified, regardless of the economic cost to the parent nation.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2016, 02:25:52 PM »

Pretty much, with the caveat that it is the people making up the state who have the right. Of course there would need to be an adequate system for determining the will of the people (Both a referendum and a vote in the legislature). There would need to be a mechanism for resolving issues of government property and dual citizenship as well. For example, at the onset of the Civil War a delegation representing the Confederacy offered to pay the U.S. for the value of military bases and other government buildings and improvements in the south, as well as an apportioned percent of the existing national debt. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Russia offered a certain type of dual citizenship to residents, and gave them the option to reject Russian citizenship. In the U.S., this would be a necessity to deal with the 14th Amendment issues (and potential 5th Amendment one as well).

But in principle, I agree with Abraham Lincoln's view that:  "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” 
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2016, 06:28:57 PM »

Alright, I'll take the first billet: it obviously depends.  Because they aren't being allowed to vote and participate in their government?  Absolutely.  Because they're nervous the enslavement of human beings is about to be upended?  Nope.
Pretty much this. Generally speaking, I see government as a contract between the people of a given nation-state, not as a contract between various geographic subdivisions of that state. This leads me to oppose secession in most cases, except when consented to by both parties as opposed to just the seceders, or when the central government has de facto annulled the contract by denying the applicable state/region representation.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,188
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 10, 2016, 12:10:48 AM »

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.

I didn't actually know how many Rohingya were in Myanmar, but good to know.

And I get the economic argument, but I feel it pales in comparison to moral arguments; if oppression or violence is encouraged against a group, they should have the right to at least potentially secede from the oppressor nation, because otherwise, what ability do they have to resist said oppressor? Shouldn't the Rohingya for example, have the right and ability to stop their wider society from oppressing them? And if all other avenues are explored and failed, then why not secession?

Again, South Sudan and East Timor are good examples; there's no way they could have gotten democratic rights, so their secession was justified, regardless of the economic cost to the parent nation.

?? My argument isn't an economic one?
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2016, 12:20:58 AM »

I would say that in democratic nations, it's not that great of an idea to secede since you theoretically have the better chance to help your region within that framework, but it should be allowed. In non-democratic nations, I would be more inclined to treat the desire to secede seriously. So, in say, Scotland or Quebec, I think it's a dumb idea economically for them secede, but I wouldn't be that opposed to the Rohingya wanting to secede from Myanmar, for example.

This is an interesting perspective, but flawed (leaving aside the Myanmar example, as Rakhine state is only about 20% Rohingya). Developing countries are often very vulnerable and often fear they will be completely Balkanised if they allow parts of themselves to fly off willy-nilly on ethnic grounds (which would result in potential chaos if the partition is carried out haphazardly or under ethnic chauvinist grounds - see Pakistan). That's why the developed world is so unwilling to recognise Somalliland - because it would cause Puntland and other separatist areas to start arguing, and then nobody can economically develop because it all crashes into ethnic bickering.

I didn't actually know how many Rohingya were in Myanmar, but good to know.

And I get the economic argument, but I feel it pales in comparison to moral arguments; if oppression or violence is encouraged against a group, they should have the right to at least potentially secede from the oppressor nation, because otherwise, what ability do they have to resist said oppressor? Shouldn't the Rohingya for example, have the right and ability to stop their wider society from oppressing them? And if all other avenues are explored and failed, then why not secession?

Again, South Sudan and East Timor are good examples; there's no way they could have gotten democratic rights, so their secession was justified, regardless of the economic cost to the parent nation.

?? My argument isn't an economic one?

I was referring to the "nobody can economically develop" bit, where you mentioned Somalia. I guess I misread it and assumed the economic bit was a bigger part of your argument. My mistake.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2016, 09:36:54 AM »

No.

The Union Forever.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2016, 06:17:03 PM »

I don't know about the rest of the world, but as far as the United States is concerned, the Civil War settled the issue.  
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2016, 12:37:04 AM »


For one thing, this is a general question, not one of the US.

For another thing, why?

What if the US government turned sour and almost all of a state--let's say, Connecticut--wanted to leave? Why couldn't they leave? What gives the federal government the right to keep people under their rule against their will?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 15 queries.