Not so. Some are inherent wrongs, that are codified into law. Murder is not a technicality, for example.
Again, that’s all circular.
If you can just let the guys be their own country, like any other people who have their own country, then these will magically cease to be crimes. You’re only turning them into crimes by virtue of your insistence that they cannot secede, which is the question at hand.
That’s all very deep, but the fact of the matter is that secession is a crime and it is the responsibility of government to uphold law. If you’re saying that secession shouldn’t be a crime, well, fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, we’re not living in an anarchist state and I can’t just declare that my apartment complex is now the city-state of Melonopia and the local Home Depot the Melonopian Embassy.
Edit: Though really, it’s only proper for you to address me as Your Juicyness from this point onward.
That only applies if you consider secession some sort of natural right. I don’t. The word is essentially meaningless to me, and the resulting crimes are no different than any others.
Curiously enough, you’re not just wrong, you’re wrong in the specific circumstance under discussion – pro- or anti-secessionist sentiment in Confederate-controlled territories in the US Civil War: West Virginia and Eastern Tenessee. Eastern Tennessee in particular begged for invasion by Federal troops:
That’s not what I’m saying.
I’m saying that some crimes are technicalities and some are not. Secession is a technicality.
You can’t just reflexively assume anything goes once you decide that something is a crime. You need to consider the pluses and minuses of whatever you’re contemplating doing.
In that context, you can’t compare the equation of “technical crime versus real consequences” to “actual crime versus real consequences”.
[This is also addressed to Alessan.]
The words are in English, but I don’t understand.
Your position seems to be that once you’ve fit secession into the technical category of “crime”, then anything goes (enforcement-wise), and it’s no different than any other crime. That doesn’t follow logically.
If by “anything goes” you mean that I believe that the next step would be to send in federal officers to arrest the people responsible for breaking the law, then sure. Of course, there’s a good chance that the newly-seceded state will resist violently, but again, the resulting war would be on them.
Why not?
What about the Americans who now find themselves living in a foreign country? Doesn’t the American government have an obligation to them?
How is it different if Mexico invaded California and took it over vs California declaring itself an independent nation? In both cases, we have Americans who find themselves no longer under American rule.
Note that what we’re talking about here is secession, not a civil war.
Secession is moral under certain circumstances. One, with the consent of the larger polity. If Czechoslovakia consents to the secession of Slovakia, then there’s no problem. But there are all sorts of details to work out. What happens to people who live in the seceding territory, but want to remain citizens of the other territory? What happens to national debts and national assets and national obligations?
Or, if the larger polity is oppressive, then the smaller units can morally secede. This is the justification for American independence from Britain. This is a subset of the inherent right to resist oppressive government by force. If you live under tyranny, you’d be morally justified in fighting back, even if only to win freedom for a portion of the territory under tyranny.
Somehow I doubt the slaves were asked if they wanted to secede. Only some of the people of the South chose to secede; a great many of them weren’t given a choice in the matter. That was the whole point of the Confederacy after all.
Gaddafi defending his recognised regime against rebels = deaths = warcrimes.
The United States defending its recognised regime against rebels = deaths = rectitude.
It’s all just moralistic will-to-power just like any side in any conflict there ever was. NTTAWWT. The main lesson is x = deaths.
In one case, the rebels are fighting a tyrant; in the other, the rebels WERE tyrants. There’s your difference.
And which entirely objective impartial galactic authority irrefutably decides the attributes in each contest ?
:rolleyes: Please. We aren’t talking about subtle coercion, mildly unfair situations here. We are talking about blatant exploitation, completely one sided social arrangements where only one side benefits and the other suffers. That’s tyranny, that’s exploitation.
Nor do I care in the slightest what some “entirely objective impartial galactic authority” has to say on the subject, even if one existed.
Secession is treason and rebellion and thus must be crushed.
So if, after the next Republican victory at the polls, a large number of the wretched of the earth, poorest members of American society hoisted the Red Flag, seized a few states, and seceded to attempt to create their own communal non-aggressive nation, you would condemn them just as thoroughly as you condemn those others with whom you disagree who might attempt to secede for their own nefarious ends — despite the fact that it’s the same US Government each would be facing ?
One man’s tyrant is another man’s legimately elected government.
If the Republicans declare that those poor people are property, and no longer have civil rights including the right to vote, of course they’d have the right to secede; or even better, to kill the Republicans. Slavers are hostis humani generis, the enemies of mankind.
So how do you define a “real” country? Is it necessary for the citizens of a country to have a unified history, language and religion for it to be real? Czechoslovakia wasn’t the only country to be made up of two or more nations.
And as far as I can tell, both the Czech Republic and Slovakia are traditionally Catholic countries, although according to Wikipedia the majority of Czechs are non-religious while the majority of Slovaks practice Catholicism (or at least define themselves as Catholics on surveys).
Your question is meaningless. Actually, you’re not making any question at all.
Define “moral” in your argument first, then ask your question.