# Is the idea of national sovereignty philosophically sound? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092 "2009-10-25T21:04:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092/21 "2009-10-27T23:24:06Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > It’s funny, you seem to be implying here that communists are all subsistence farmers and fishermen. Which makes sense because when all the fruits of your toil are taken from you, you tend to work just barely enough to survive. Communists love poor people so much they want us all to join in on the poverty fun! Actually more amusing is that the old Comintern bloc contains a multitude of environmental catastrophes - No Capitalism Needed - that also revolve around a kind of tragedy of the commons. However, otherwise, to throw Dibble a bone, it is quite true that there has been recent literature around a more nuanced understanding of certain traditional commons systems (that meet certain criteria). Nevertheless, the idea that traditional systems are examples of good management is Noble Savage era tripe, there are plenty of examples (such as the American South West pre-contact) that suggest over exploitation of commons leading to collapse. Anyway, markets and private ownership are not perfect - no human system is - and to help address inevitable failings, intelligent market regulation is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2009, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092/22 "2009-10-27T23:48:22Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Correct. It’s a precise example of _petitio principii_. > > So shut up. You have absolutely no right to point that out. And I take offense at your doing so – and, in this particular universe of debate, the majority is on my side. > > Note that, in this case, this post is not the belligerent sort of flame that belongs only in the Pit – it’s reasoning from your point. If we are unable to presume rights for mankind, then your ability to point that out is protected by nothing, and may be stifled by brute force or social overpowering – mob rule. > > Or, perhaps, you might want to rethink whether there are innate rights which governments have a moral obligation to recognize. You’re going to hell, you rotten blasphemer. I’m reasoning from your point, see. Because you reject this Jack Chick tract, you obviously don’t believe in God. Belief in innate rights does not neccessarily entail believing a committee of UN bureaucrats has any idea what they are or any more right to define them than anyone else does. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092/23 "2009-10-28T05:21:51Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > It’s funny, you seem to be implying here that communists are all subsistence farmers and fishermen. No such implication intended. I don’t romanticize Communism at all. Abbhorent system. > [@](#): > > I’m not talking about _more_ government, I’m talking about _better_ government.[…] And I think the best way to do that is to make government transparent, inclusive (open to all who all who have a stake, not just citizens) and to concentrate its powers at the local level. You’ll get no argument from me. I agree completely. [QUOTE=wmfellows] AAh, so you get to define away in a hand waving fashion the problem. [/quote] No, I’m recognizing when defining something as TotC is actually an attempt to define the problem away. The problem with open sea fisheries _isn’t_ that they’re a common resource. The problem is lack of enforcement of the regulations that do exist. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092/24 "2009-10-28T13:23:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The problem with open sea fisheries _isn’t_ that they’re a common resource. The problem is lack of enforcement of the regulations that do exist. I find this deeply amusing… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-idea-of-national-sovereignty-philosophically-sound/515092.md?page=1)