Self-Determination

Refutations [...] of Round 2, Identity: Identity can as well define a diverse group united in tolerance of belief. A group may be bound together cohesively in diversity. In the case of India and Pakistan, after those two nations gained independence, they could have then, if self-determination were to be respected at all levels, exercised further self-determination. The people united in tolerance of belief could associate into a nation of counterbalance to the people united in unity of belief. At all points in the process, each person would live in the nation they wished to live in, and all persons could move freely, in order to fulfill their liberty of personal self-determination. Such would be a long line of peaceful revolutions of nations. The same goes for Nazi Germany and the Islamic State. If self-determination existed at the scale of areas of groups, then I contend that such societies would never have flourished because of the risk of loss of power by losing land and population. Thus, such instances of history would not repeat in increased density of time because such repetitions would be unfavorable to those wishing to repeat them. The Islamic State it is authoritarian because it is exercising determination of the lives and fates of unwilling individuals. Self-determination does not justify authoritarianism, as all liberties are meant to be respected unless they abridge the liberties of others, according to the Harm Principle. (1) of Round 2, Borders: If self-determination were to be respected at all levels, then borders would be defined by the independence, so long as they directly bordered the edges of the group's area. of Round 2, The Numbers/Authority: Each nation would, in a generalized fashion, determine the majority that would be needed in any of their areas if any such area were to attempt to secede. The people would not make the majority so high as to weaken their own chances of future independence, nor would they make it so low as for it to be too easy for their areas to secede without their support. of Round 2, Conclusions: Self-determination does not specifically rely on the permission of any government, though it is only easier if with permission. of Round 3, Self-Sovereignty and Association: The liberties of people are held as self-evident, in the empirical fact that we are beings of conscious thoughts and desires. In a world where self-determination is respected, you could attempt to find a group in your specific area to attempt to secede from the original nation by attaining the required majority or by declaration of despotism and oppression. of Round 3, Escape from Oppression: The current authoritarian governments of the world are irrelevant to the right of self-determination in a yet-to-be free world. Also, if a nation is despotic to its minorities, then of that despotism the minorities may declare independence, without permission of the despotic nation, and is thus independent regardless, and thus fully able to form alliances with supportive foreign nations to further solidify that independence from the original despotism (such as with the US and France against the UK during the US War of Independence.) of Round 3, Alliances and Cooperation: Regarding Crimea, contrary to what anti-Russian propaganda would have us believe, Crimea exercised self-sovereignty from a, in their view, despotic government in Kiev, and, just as the US did with France in the US War of Independence, allied themselves with Russia which then helped solidify Crimea"s independence from the rest of the Ukraine. Simultaneously, Crimea also self-determined itself to be part of the nation of Russia, and the nation of Russia then began to defend its newly reformed border. The sanctions inflicted upon Russia for doing these things are a result of a despotic alliance of nations, the reverse of counteraction against an oppressive nation. I concede that Crimea's secession was not so great, for only 30% turned out to vote and only a simple majority of those voting caused the secession. (2) But we live not in the world that we could. of Round 3, Conclusions: The Pro's conclusions hinge on the idea that history will inevitably repeat itself and that such a universal acceptance of self-sovereignty cannot come to be; I contend that it may come to be based on the self-evident truths of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I also have no other arguments to put forward in this round, though I look forward to the next. (1) https://www.princeton.edu... (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...