Categories
Choice and Philosophy Kushay's Matter Bank

[AK] Statehood And Self Determination

This note will discuss the framework to analyze the principle of statehood.

Why do people have the right to self determine himself?

Simplest answer: because it affects you, and you should have the right two voice out what you want. Missing link: everything in this world affects us. But we are not entitled to the right to dictate everything.

Go one step forward!

Analyze on where is the position of that right.

Example: THW directly elect Vice President (VP)s. It isn’t enough to say that VPs affects you, so you should elect them. Say that VPs belong to the people because 1. He is capable o/ making decisions independent of the president and 2. He can replace the president himself.

Opp, on the other hand, might claim that VPs belongs to the president. A sample analysis would be to say that VPs are accountable to the president, it is the closest aide o/ president, etc.

Second approach. Are people capable o/ self-determination?

Do a demographic study. Analyze an entire spectrum of people (what do they stand for, characterization, etc.) to prove why the opinions would be varied, and a good decision’ll be made at the end of the day.

Third dot. Is the exercise of self-determination meaningful? Several canned points:

1) Lesser of two evils (harm minimization)

2) Greater good (the lesser of two evils principle is bad because the differences is so thin you don’t know who is the lesser, and ideally in voting what happens is not majority wins minority lose but majority wins, but minority understands why majority wins, choosing lesser of two evils will reduce the incentive for the two evils to change, etc.)

3) Benefit of the doubt (SQ IS F***ED UP AND UNCHANGEABLE AND WE KNOW IT FOR SURE, so why not gamble by doing this?) when you run this argument, say that WE WON’T KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE IT’S SO DAMN COMPLICATED.

4) Zero sum game (a situation where you don’t get marginal benefit/harm. Why then should we execute this? Because the exercise PER SE is beneficial (learning avenue, agency possession) even if the outcome is 0.

5) Personal is political (your political interest is FOR YOU and YOURS)

6) Politics is a collective process (politics is not a one-man show, referendum is necessary in many circumstances) (why don’t you choose policy one by one instead o/ president? Two reasons. One they’re not capable and two, you only choose the platform when voting a candidate (his spirit, ideology etc.). It’s not the person who matters, it’s the system.

Purpose o/ self-determination is relative to an individual’s political ideology.

– Communists: Full egalitarian society, abolishment of capital ownership. Equality of opportunity and outcome.

– Social Democrats: Different w/ communist in a sense that they recognize capital owner, landowner, and labor. So we all should work cooperatively for everyone’s benefits but no side can be egoistic and dominate the other. Which is why they have welfare state system. The core is to concede and compromise. Private property can exist, but opportunity & outcome should be equal.

– Liberals (centrist): The basis is freedom. Equal opportunity is their core tenet. BUT outcome should NOT be equal. Government should only be the ‘tournament organizer’.
Libertarians: Government shout go big. Economy should be run by individuals.

– FAR RIGHT: Racists, Fascists, etc.

For anarchists, the presence of the state is problematic because the state will create an inherently oppressive hierarchy. What’s good is not a presence of a state but the presence of a big society. They believe that the people should not run based on order, but trial error with the spirit of respect.
State is inherently creating power imbalance (military, media, etc.) and it’s hard for the people to fight back. Why then the absence of state possible? Use the benefit of the doubt principle. And self-determination IS a political strategy to achieve equality.

Liberals sees state as a mutual interest, because It’s designed to give people individual happiness, so they consented because the state is beneficial to them. By that logic, if an individual feels unhappy with the state then he has the right to opt out from it. Criticized by saying it’s immoral for you to opt your community out of a state because your actions affects other people. Moreover, some values are regressive in creating good change and them seceding worsens things off.

Case study: split US to north-south proponents (Liberals) believes two things: One, that the individual has the right to have a state that is the same w/ his ideology AND that the south SHOULD self destruct with their bigoted ideology and the north SHOULD BE FREE of their nuisance.

Conservatives believes that state is required to maintain social order. And social order is important for conservatives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *