Workers at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) removed the Tiananmen Massacre monument late on Wednesday night, months after the university said the statue must go. UPDATE: HKU cites ‘safety’ and ‘co…
I think the argument was rather that even if separatism would lead to objectively worse outcomes, forcing someone to stay together as one country would still be (morally) wrong.
And it is highly questionable if it leads to objectively worse outcomes at least when cooperation is still possible. The problem is usually that one side tries to force the issue and that leads to bitterness on both sides and thus cooperation becomes impossible.
Borders are arbitrary. People might as well say the best outcome would be a capitalist world government. So those separatist Chinese that insist on having their own flavor of Capitalism should really just think more of the prosperity of the people ( /s obviously).
In the end the prosperity of the people does indeed matter more, but arbitrary lines on a map only become an issue for that when people make them so. There is nothing inherently problematic in having decentralized means of administration under different flags as long as everyone cooperates.
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.
Removed by mod
I think the argument was rather that even if separatism would lead to objectively worse outcomes, forcing someone to stay together as one country would still be (morally) wrong.
And it is highly questionable if it leads to objectively worse outcomes at least when cooperation is still possible. The problem is usually that one side tries to force the issue and that leads to bitterness on both sides and thus cooperation becomes impossible.
Removed by mod
Borders are arbitrary. People might as well say the best outcome would be a capitalist world government. So those separatist Chinese that insist on having their own flavor of Capitalism should really just think more of the prosperity of the people ( /s obviously).
In the end the prosperity of the people does indeed matter more, but arbitrary lines on a map only become an issue for that when people make them so. There is nothing inherently problematic in having decentralized means of administration under different flags as long as everyone cooperates.
Removed by mod
I think the misunderstanding comes from what the word means. Some people use it to designate the rule of someone else, as in the examples you mentioned. I personally advocate for autonomy (decentralized power) which also fits under that umbrella.
So yes, context matters. But consent matters even more so. I never consented to live under the rule of the French Empire and every day of my life i suffer due to that. The same is true with many people. In the name of what would you refuse us the right to build our own autonomous commune as is illegal by French law?
Removed by mod
Reasoning with those in power does not work: those from the ZAD who tried to negotiate with the State ended up betraying/destroying the ZAD (it’s now all legalized and mostly populated by hipsters and bourgeois). Going all guerilla warfare on your government is a valid strategy, but arguably modern empires have become too resilient for that to work. Mounting a legal political party for your cause seems useless: even a formally-elected government like in Catalonia will get repressed by the State for trying to separate.
Yeah there’s a lot we can do and i guess both of us are involved in various projects AFK, but still when you boil it down to personal/communal consent, Nation States are always the enemy of the people.
Removed by mod
I’m not morally opposed to “work from within” as long as you don’t become corrupted. I just don’t know of a single example of this strategy working to produce any significant change, but i do know many examples of people betraying their cause due to working within the system.