Self-Determination

Rebuttals 1: - Self-Sovereignty and Association: My opponent says "At the root of self-sovereignty is the natural right of self-determination." "every person has the right to associate with whomever they choose." This is a nice sentiment, however not a truth empirically evident or plausible applicable in society. Consider, I was born in the United States; I did not choose to be born here. The Constitution, or in other words "social contract," that I am bound to, I did not sign. I did not negotiate the terms by which I am governed. I also am without the means to leave the society in which I was born. So here I am, trapped in a society I did not choose, subject to a contract I did not negotiate. I am seemingly powerless to change my circumstance much less choose it. That does not sound like sovereignty or self determination to me. (I am happy to have been born in the USA and have no desire to leave... just to clarify. =514;) 2: Escape from Oppression My opponent says "- Self-determination being the root of self-sovereignty, an area may become independent even without the express permission of the larger nation. If the larger nation becomes despotic or ignorant of the needs of an area in particular, then that area has a duty to throw off the chains of that larger government which bind them so as to provide the area with a more respectable government for its people." These words reflect the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. Again, this would seem ideal, and the United States did exercise self-determination to a degree at this time. However almost one Hundred years later when the South Seceded from the Union, they were denied the so called "right" to secede. The very nation that perhaps would serve as empirical evidence of the benefits of self-determination, no longer seems to trumpet that right. It does not seem plausible to believe that larger nations would willingly allow groups to become independent from them as empirical evidence has shown otherwise. I would also point out that the U.S. was largely successful due to outside help from France. I am not currently aware of a case where the "oppressed" have been able to "throw off the chains" without outside help. Pro goes on to say "If a nation were to internally oppress minorities of their own, the areas in which those minorities live would likely self-determine independence from the oppressive nation and optionally even join another consenting country entirely." Repeatedly the United States has served as empirical evidence that this is not the case. Did African slaves self-determine? Did women self-determine? Historically these groups have eventually received suffrage after generations of pushing for it. This route, while it takes generations to work, has proven effective comparatively to self-determination. 3: Alliances and Cooperation Pro states; "On a Global level, as areas gradually gained independence, merged, gained independence, etc. the countries of the world would gradually become more internally peaceful through tolerance of belief or through unity in belief. In a Global system of self-determination, countries would be wary in neglecting people of other countries, because an equal reaction would likely reach them in return." These words reflect the idea of Reciprocity, which is defined as a "mutual exchange."(1) Reciprocity is in fact a principle of international relations. This is evident as theories like, Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) have become prevalent. However it is also evident that the fear of reciprocal actions, do not consistently deter States actions. Take the current condition of Russia, the Ukraine, and the West collectively. Sanctions have been the reciprocal reaction to Russia"s involvement in Crimea, and yet Russia has not backed down. Likewise in this Utopia Pro has created; reciprocity, while a vital part on IR, is not consistently effective on its own and many nations would not be deterred by the threat of retaliation or trade embargo's. Concluding rebuttal While Pro"s argument for Self-determination seems ideal, it is unreasonable, and unrealistic. This is empirically evident through the numerous examples through history and the modern world. I have no new arguments to present at this time, though am interested to see Pro"s contention to my opening arguments and refute my contentions to his argument. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...