Self-Determination

Kudos to my opponent for a well thought out debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Rebuttals My opponent said "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". 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." As I said in round three, "While Pro"s argument for Self-determination seems ideal, it is unreasonable, and unrealistic." In the specific case of India and Pakistan, people did migrate to the nation with which they would identify with more. "More than 5 million Hindus and Sikhs were forced to move from present-day Pakistan into present-day India, and the same number of Muslims, moved in the other direction. A large number of people (more than a million by some estimates) died in the accompanying violence. "(1) Next my opponent applies the Harm principle. (I found this highly amusing as this principle is presented by John Stuart Mill, who"s likeness is my picture on this website.) According to the link that Pro provided, the harm principle is summarized as "each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself."(2) However Mill goes on to argue "that individuals are prevented from doing lasting, serious harm to themselves or their property by the harm principle. Because no-one exists in isolation, harm done to oneself also harms others, and destroying property deprives the community as well as oneself."(2) Pro concludes that argument by saying "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." Self-determination can devastatingly "harm" individuals and nations effected by it, as is clearly evident by the examples I have provided. Thus the "harm" principle is weak support for self-determination. In response to my contention to self-determination by way of boarders pro states "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." This does not resolve the issue I presented that "If self-determination happened on a global scale, then the deciding of boarders would present a huge problem and almost certainly start several wars."(empirically evident by India and Pakistan) Likewise in response to my argument on Authority/numbers pro does not resolve the issue I present. He says "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." I argued that this type of response is obviously not plausible. Pro states "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." No such world has ever or will ever exist where "self-determination is respected." Conclusion A world of self-determination on a global scale is a world that does not exist. Due to issues with Identity, boarders, and authority/numbers, such a world is not likely to exist. While the notion seems ideal, it is unrealistic and unreasonable. Pro contends that such a world "may come to be based on the self-evident truths of liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This too is mythology, as is evident from history. Vote Con! Thanks Pro for a great debate. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)https://www.princeton.edu...