No Country Has A "Right to Exist"
Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 5 months ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"While definitions vary, Murray Rothbard best distilled the state in his classic long essay, “Anatomy of the State.” Rothbard wrote: “The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.”
Whether the associated flag of the state in question has a Star of David, stars and stripes, or a hammer and sickle, the suggestion that it’s immoral to propose that such a monopoly be rearranged or replaced is preposterous on its face. Over the broad sweep of history, the norm is not states existing in perpetuity. Rather, history is the story of never-ending rearrangements of these many monopolies on the use of force and violence.
Did the Soviet Union have a “right to exist”? What about Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the Ottoman Empire? Are we all culpably-silent bystanders to some kind of ongoing injustice as long as those bygone states are not reconstituted?"
"While definitions vary, Murray Rothbard best distilled the state in his classic long essay, “Anatomy of the State.” Rothbard wrote: “The state is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.”
Whether the associated flag of the state in question has a Star of David, stars and stripes, or a hammer and sickle, the suggestion that it’s immoral to propose that such a monopoly be rearranged or replaced is preposterous on its face. Over the broad sweep of history, the norm is not states existing in perpetuity. Rather, history is the story of never-ending rearrangements of these many monopolies on the use of force and violence.
Did the Soviet Union have a “right to exist”? What about Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the Ottoman Empire? Are we all culpably-silent bystanders to some kind of ongoing injustice as long as those bygone states are not reconstituted?"
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Countries, nations, states, and empires come and go.
Human constructs can have no more rights than the humans doing the supporting.
That said, I and others can have preferences for what shall stay and what shall go, such preferences again have no rights eg no majority vote.
If it were up to me, my preference is to see the end of the Gaza entity, by whatever means it takes, as no signs of the will for peaceful co-existence can be detected.
That criterion is obviously not popular, the majority favor power, and power expressed with thoughtless violence and cruelty.
Include me out.
Didn't the author ever hear of John Locke, the Declaration of Independence, the U S Constitution, or the Bill of Rights imbedded therein?