Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And therefore, naturally, forced imposition of undemocratic regime change accompanied by forced seizure of property and forced displacement of people in defiance of local and international law, all of it being done at literal gunpoint

You already said that whether the Crimeans' votes were taken at gunpoint, or if Crimea had fair, uncontested, democratic elections with international observers, either way it's a moot point since you wouldn't accept the results of the election. It's simply a diversion tactic to criticize voting methods when you've already gone on record saying the vote is illegitimate anyway.

Yes, because of the conditions under which it occurred.

I know this is terrifically difficult stuff to grasp, but if I judge this vote illegitimate, it does not in fact follow that I judge all votes illegitimate. Please try to keep up.

(09-05-2014 08:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This distraction doesn't discredit the claim in my OP: Putin's official position on paper (whether or not it's the reality on the ground) that each region should be autonomous and allowed to hold democratic elections to determine their own fate is the same as Thomas Jefferson's.

That was also Stalin's official position on paper, incidentally.

The Soviet Constitution provided for free and open elections. History shows that they were also so incredibly popular that they regularly achieved 97% results in favour of what the men with guns said to do.

(09-05-2014 08:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And the West's official position, like yours, that no matter what the will of the people is they will never be allowed to do anything the central government disapproves of is the same as Stalin's.

No, since that is literally a statement you pulled from your ass.

(09-05-2014 08:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  All your silly tangents don't change that.[/align]

Yes, my "silly tangents", which are direct responses to your inanity, are "tangential", but the remarks of yours which they're addressing, which refer to precisely the same things, aren't.

More of your patented "logic", I see.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
09-05-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:25 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. What would be an appropriate response [if a region secedes without approval of the Federal government]?

Te answer, of course, is it depends, because unlike your facetious and superficial hypotheticals, reality admits of nuance.

No, the answer is simple: let the people determine their own fate. And, if you allow regions their own local, autonomous rule, then there never will be a need for secession. If Kiev had simply allowed Crimea to remain autonomous, let them continue using Russian in their local government, let them make their own decisions, then Crimea never would have wanted to secede in the first place. The whole problem is caused, as all problems throughout human history, by one group of people trying to dominate another group and force them to do something against their will. Since that is the root issue behind all man-made tragedy's, we libertarians keep asking: "Why not just stop trying to force other people to do things, and agree to peacefully co-exists? Is it REALLY worth it?" But this logic doesn't seem to compute for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:01 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:48 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You already said that whether the Crimeans' votes were taken at gunpoint, or if Crimea had fair, uncontested, democratic elections with international observers, either way it's a moot point since you wouldn't accept the results of the election. It's simply a diversion tactic to criticize voting methods when you've already gone on record saying the vote is illegitimate anyway.

Yes, because of the conditions under which it occurred.

Look, I've asked you point blank many times: "If a region fairly and democratically votes to secede, despite the objections of the national government, should they be allowed."

You won't answer it. You keep saying "it's nuanced". Well "nuanced" is just a pathetic way to leave all your options open so that if you're part of the region that wants to secede you can say 'Yes, of course', and if you're part of the national government you can say 'No, we must take up arms against them.'

I prefer to deal present hypothetical examples where we're personally removed. I'll just say 'what if A does X, what should B do'. Because I'm using logic to come up with a moral code which I will follow whether it personally benefits me or not. You, however, insist it's "nuanced", thus leaving all options on the table, so that you can pick the position that benefits you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:02 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:25 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. What would be an appropriate response [if a region secedes without approval of the Federal government]?

Te answer, of course, is it depends, because unlike your facetious and superficial hypotheticals, reality admits of nuance.

No, the answer is simple: let the people determine their own fate.

And apparently non-violence is optional. Gotcha.

(09-05-2014 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And, if you allow regions their own local, autonomous rule, then there never will be a need for secession. If Kiev had simply allowed Crimea to remain autonomous, let them continue using Russian in their local government, let them make their own decisions, then Crimea never would have wanted to secede in the first place.

Autonomy of Crimean was never revoked. Russian language rights were never revoked.

(09-05-2014 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The whole problem is caused, as all problems throughout human history, by one group of people trying to dominate another group and force them to do something against their will.

Oh, buddy, you long since let that ship sail when you justified and endorsed the violent thuggery in Crimea.

Hypothetical actions by the national Ukrainian government against people living in Crimea: bad.

Actual actions by the Crimean government against people living in Crimea: good.

The doublethink is strong with this one.

(09-05-2014 08:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Since that is the root issue behind all man-made tragedy's, we libertarians keep asking: "Why not just stop trying to force other people to do things, and agree to peacefully co-exists? Is it REALLY worth it?" But this logic doesn't seem to compute for you.

Yes, because agreeing to peacefully coexist is exactly what the Russian military did when they invaded Crimea.

How many layers does your delusion have?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:48 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, because of the conditions under which it occurred.

Look, I've asked you point blank many times: "If a region fairly and democratically votes to secede, despite the objections of the national government, should they be allowed."

You won't answer it. You keep saying "it's nuanced".

That's because reality, unlike your toy scenarios, is actually complicated. Shucks.

(09-05-2014 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Well "nuanced" is just a pathetic way to leave all your options open so that if you're part of the region that wants to secede you can say 'Yes, of course', and if you're part of the national government you can say 'No, we must take up arms against them.'

No, see, that's you once again inventing something and then attributing it.

What I actually said - in "black and white", as you say, and not in your special little fantasies - is this:
Any political resettlement requires negotiation by all affected parties, or else it cannot be "fair and democratic" by definition.

This is not a complicated statement. Why are you avoiding addressing it?

(09-05-2014 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I prefer to deal present hypothetical examples where we're personally removed.

And your hypotheticals are so ludicrously reductive and irrelevant that they accomplish nothing.

(09-05-2014 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'll just say 'what if A does X, what should B do'. Because I'm using logic to come up with a moral code which I will follow whether it personally benefits me or not. You, however, insist it's "nuanced", thus leaving all options on the table, so that you can pick the position that benefits you.

You couldn't logic your way out of a paper bag.

I mean, I usually find that shallow, superficial, reductive, obsessive dogmatism is not the best mindset. Maybe we can agree to disagree on that?

But since you are content to ignore literally everything you claim to believe when it comes to the Russian adventures in Crimea, who knows.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, because agreeing to peacefully coexist is exactly what the Russian military did when they invaded Crimea.... But since you are content to ignore literally everything you claim to believe when it comes to the Russian adventures in Crimea, who knows.

Now who's making up the strawman? I have never defended what Russia did, and I've repeatedly admitted I don't know the facts about the boots on the ground. I don't claim to know all the facts, like you do. Instead I keep saying over and over that "on paper", what Putin says, not necessarily what he does, namely to allow local autonomous rule echoes Thomas Jefferson. So all your comments about Russian "invading" are irrelevant. And they expose your one-sided view when you characterize Russia having a long-established, negotiated base in Crimea to be "an invasion", whereas when the US has bases in 130 countries, it's just "lending a helping hand".

(09-05-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Any political resettlement requires negotiation by all affected parties, or else it cannot be "fair and democratic" by definition.

Nobody is disputing that if, say, Quebec seceded from Canada it would be a complex situation what to do with Canada's federally owned property in Quebec, and both sides should negotiate in good faith, offering Canada the ability to keep the property or sell it at fair market value. This is smoke-screen since I never suggested otherwise. Rather, I brought up the general principle over and over whether a region should be allowed to secede despite the objections of the national government. You have repeatedly gone on record saying 'no', but then every time I point out that your stance will inevitably lead to civil wars, then you respond that "it's nuanced" so you have the flexibility of deciding on a case-by-case basis what's right or wrong rather than respecting core principles even when they don't directly benefit you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 10:21 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 09:01 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 08:48 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, because of the conditions under which it occurred.

Look, I've asked you point blank many times: "If a region fairly and democratically votes to secede, despite the objections of the national government, should they be allowed."

You won't answer it. You keep saying "it's nuanced". Well "nuanced" is just a pathetic way to leave all your options open so that if you're part of the region that wants to secede you can say 'Yes, of course', and if you're part of the national government you can say 'No, we must take up arms against them.'

I prefer to deal present hypothetical examples where we're personally removed. I'll just say 'what if A does X, what should B do'. Because I'm using logic to come up with a moral code which I will follow whether it personally benefits me or not. You, however, insist it's "nuanced", thus leaving all options on the table, so that you can pick the position that benefits you.

Not very libertarian of you. Regions don't vote - people do. If those people don't like it, they should move and not use guns to force change on others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 10:40 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 10:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not very libertarian of you. Regions don't vote - people do. If those people don't like it, they should move and not use guns to force change on others.

So if Canada passes laws that Quebec finds repressive, and 99% of all Québécois want to secede, you're saying that the 99% should move and abandon their homes, leaving them to the 1%?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 11:09 AM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, because agreeing to peacefully coexist is exactly what the Russian military did when they invaded Crimea.... But since you are content to ignore literally everything you claim to believe when it comes to the Russian adventures in Crimea, who knows.

Now who's making up the strawman? I have never defended what Russia did, and I've repeatedly admitted I don't know the facts about the boots on the ground.

You denied multiple easily provable statements.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I don't claim to know all the facts, like you do.

I never made any such claim. This is another fantasy.

I did, however, correct several heinous misconceptions you apparently held. Like the one where you apparently hadn't realized that Russian military elements were involved in occupying the Crimea despite outright acknowledge by the Russian government that they were.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Instead I keep saying over and over that "on paper", what Putin says, not necessarily what he does, namely to allow local autonomous rule echoes Thomas Jefferson. So all your comments about Russian "invading" are irrelevant.

Jefferson wasn't too big on imperialistic military actions, either.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And they expose your one-sided view when you characterize Russia having a long-established, negotiated base in Crimea to be "an invasion", whereas when the US has bases in 130 countries, it's just "lending a helping hand".

I literally never mentioned US bases at all in this thread.

Congratulations on once again inventing something in order to attribute it.

The Russian base at Sevastopol was, surprisingly enough, distinct from all of Crimea. It was leased - legally - and Russian jurisdiction did not extend beyond it.

That's kind of an important distinction, which you hurriedly gloss over in your rush to bloviate.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Any political resettlement requires negotiation by all affected parties, or else it cannot be "fair and democratic" by definition.

Nobody is disputing that if, say, Quebec seceded from Canada it would be a complex situation what to do with Canada's federally owned property in Quebec, and both sides should negotiate in good faith, offering Canada the ability to keep the property or sell it at fair market value. This is smoke-screen since I never suggested otherwise.

You stated there was a unilateral right.

Do you know what unilateral means? It means not in consultation with all affected parties.

Nice try, though. Your fumbling attempts at evasion are adorable.

"Both sides negotiating good faith" is the exact opposite of your earlier scenario. So there's that.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Rather, I brought up the general principle over and over whether a region should be allowed to secede despite the objections of the national government.

If it is despite other actors then there are, necessarily, unresolved issues.

(09-05-2014 09:55 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You have repeatedly gone on record saying 'no', but then every time I point out that your stance will inevitably lead to civil wars, then you respond that "it's nuanced" so you have the flexibility of deciding on a case-by-case basis what's right or wrong rather than respecting core principles even when they don't directly benefit you.

I can't decide whether your misunderstanding is deliberate, and thus dishonest, or inadvertent, and thus stupid. It is chronic either way.

In your fantasyland you are denying equality and reciprocity. What I actually said was that it depends on how those outstanding issues are resolved.

Unilateral action, as in Crimea, amounts to baldfaced forcible seizure and forced compliance.

Somehow you're just peachy with this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: Putin the new Thomas Jefferson, the west the new Stalin?!
(09-05-2014 10:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 10:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  Not very libertarian of you. Regions don't vote - people do. If those people don't like it, they should move and not use guns to force change on others.

So if Canada passes laws that Quebec finds repressive, and 99% of all Québécois want to secede, you're saying that the 99% should move and abandon their homes, leaving them to the 1%?

No, I'm saying that would be consistent with your previous statements. Many times you have stated that if one doesn't like the laws the solution is to go elsewhere.

So which is it? Government gets to enforce with guns or people take responsibility and move?

And in the case of Crimea, a foreign government at that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: