Independence

~Gvnkwyr

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:37:39 -0400

Yes, that's right too, but I insist in my question

Darkvein
(...) they will (attempt to) oust their ruler and (attempt to) install another one - or leave their governement's zone of influence and try to install their own government in an ungoverned zone or swear to another.

Fleeing and fighting for independence are totally opposite: there is an ungoverned zone in the world? not really. People who claims independence won't to go somewhere else, they will fight for the right to freely govern the land they own, free from the influence of a discordant ruler. I agree with you that independence, in modern society, shall be the last resource, leaving space for negotiation with current government or attempt to oust it. But if fleeing is not an option, what would you think as a citizen? as the governor? as part of the people who wants independence?

~Darkvein

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:57:00 -0400

A part of Social Contract Theory is that people consent to be ruled. When they no longer consent, they will (attempt to) oust their ruler and (attempt to) install another one - or leave their governement's zone of influence and try to install their own government in an ungoverned zone or swear to another. Taken at face-value, and in a general sense, people who live under oppressive, fascist, or otherwise poorly-executed governments are okay with it. If they weren't, they would be rising up to overthrow the government or fleeing to another area.

By extension, if some group in my home was so unhappy with their government, even if I view the government as good and benevolent, that they rose up.. well, social contract theory says they're well within their rights to do so. So while I wouldn't really be happy about it, I'd be okay with it.

~Gvnkwyr

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:25:20 -0400

It's a good reason, but...

Government's failure is not necessary a justification for revolution, a president that fails to serve people can be changed, laws can be reformed or some other changes can be made. Democracy is intended to please majority of but not all people, so even if a 25% of the population is not in agreement with the government the best thing they can do is wait for the next elections.

But what happens if independence claims are justified by religious, ideological, ethnic or cultural reasons?

~flyleafus

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:08:53 -0400

Ahh, an excellent topic, particularly for me as I am an American citizen and yesterday was independence day for the United States; woot 233 years old, can't wait till 250.

On a more serious note though...

I would say revolution (violent or not) is justified only when the government that is to be overthrown has failed to properly serve the people. Yes the point of the government is to serve the people, in today's modern times I feel that too many people forget that. Now what it means to "properly serve" brings up the whole matter of what is the proper function of government but that is a different discussion, some might say it is to provide jobs for all while others might say to maintain the law and nothing else but this is a matter upon itself outside this thread.

~Gvnkwyr

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:42:30 -0400

Independence

Nice word, it reflects freedom, sovereignty and a lot of good things... generally is view with good eyes, but is the same in modern society?

What would you think, as a citizen of your country, if some region or state suddenly claims independence and starts to fight for it?

NOTE: I don't have mentioned ANY country name and I wait the same for you, I know that several real-life examples exist, but this space is for well-reasoned and calmed debate, I don't want to start a political pandemonium!