What if Mexico declared war on America in WW1?

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, unrestricted warfare was the bigger issue. This allowed them to hedge their bets with that.

 

[Millman]

With all this plotting and scheming here. Is civilization going to live long enough to tell others about it? Is there evidence for any theoretical outcome beyond the known facts?

It's a good point in discussion to discontinue it. Unless simply talking about it inspires someone else.

 

[Masada]

Obviously not, 2012.

 

[Traitorfish]

...I guess?

 

[Lord Baal]

...I guess?

I find it hilarious that they had to apologise for that.

 

[Dachs]

They should apologize for leaving Panama on the map in this silly scenario

 

[Karalysia]

They can have all those states except California.

 

[LightSpectra]

No, give California to Don Rafael Montero.

 

[sophie]

Bear Flag Republic 4 lyfe.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Empire of the United States and Protectorate of Mexico 4 lyfe.

 

[Traitorfish]

Empire of the United States and Protectorate of Mexico 4 lyfe.

I have a theory that Emperor Norton was actually a brilliant, dedicated satirist; after all, what made him fundamentally distinct from any other monarch except the lack of recognition he received? He was hardly the first Emperor to come from non-royal stock, after all, nor the first to unilaterally impose monarchism upon a republic. I like to think he was making a very firm point about the nature of monarchical tradition.

Of course, I'm probably talking complete nonsense, but I'm sure that's how His Imperial Highness would have wanted it.

 

[LightSpectra]

... the critical difference being that recognized monarchs are recognized because they conquered things, or are descended from people that conquered things, to the point where their political power is ingrained into their respective societies.

 

[Traitorfish]

... the critical difference being that recognized monarchs are recognized because they conquered things, or are descended from people that conquered things, to the point where their political power is ingrained into their respective societies.

Exactly- monarchy is imposed on arbitrary grounds, the very antithesis of republican democracy. Norton had the grounds- which is to say, he had not legitimate grounds at all- he merely lacked the means of imposition.

 

[LightSpectra]

Exactly- monarchy is imposed on arbitrary grounds, the very antithesis of republican democracy.

Why is it arbitrary? The reasoning goes that if the king conquered your state, or acquired it from another state, it's because he has the great capability to protect you. There was a great deal of truth to this prior to the 17th century, when armies were cultivated through deals with the aristocracy as opposed to mass volunteers/conscription.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is it arbitrary? The reasoning goes that if the king conquered your state, or acquired it from another state, it's because he has the great capability to protect you. There was a great deal of truth to this prior to the 17th century, when armies were cultivated through deals with the aristocracy as opposed to mass volunteers/conscription.

Might makes right is about the single most arbitrary grounds anyone has ever provided for anything, yet it lies at the heart of monarchical tradition. Certainly, by the 1860s, Victoria had no more legitimate claim to personal sovereignty over an entire empire than Norton did, she simply had the support of a ruling class which was willing to entertain such nonsense.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think might makes right is arbitrary, it's just not accepted by most anymore. If it's arbitrary, so is "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses." Both are over-arching philosophies, not arbitrary distinctions.

 

[LightSpectra]

Might makes right is about the single most arbitrary grounds anyone has ever provided for anything,

"Might makes right" is a good enough maxim when the central question is "who can protect us the best." Please note that it's not might that makes moral rightness, only political legitimacy.

Certainly, by the 1860s, Victoria had no more legitimate claim to personal sovereignty over an entire empire than Norton did, she simply had the support of a ruling class which was willing to entertain such nonsense.

I did say that my argument was for prior to the 17th century. In the Victorian era, the British monarchy continued to exist solely by the power of respect for tradition.

 

[say1988]

Exactly- monarchy is imposed on arbitrary grounds, the very antithesis of republican democracy. Norton had the grounds- which is to say, he had not legitimate grounds at all- he merely lacked the means of imposition.

I would say "means of imposition" is an essential ground for every government, from dictators to democracies. If it does not exist, the government will fail. But that means can come in many forms including force, tradition, popular support, etc.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think might makes right is arbitrary, it's just not accepted by most anymore. If it's arbitrary, so is "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses." Both are over-arching philosophies, not arbitrary distinctions.

Only if we rejects the dependency of legitimacy of government on consent, which in turn means rejecting the legitimacy of consent itself, which... Well, the problems therein should be rather self-evident.

"Might makes right" is a good enough maxim when the central question is "who can protect us the best." Please note that it's not might that makes moral rightness, only political legitimacy.

Arguably, although that in itself becomes a form of government by consent, which doesn't properly characterise most historical regimes, and certainly not if we are to take consent as active, rather than passive, which is to say a lack of dissent. Imposed government by a ruling class is of rather more questionable legitimacy, at least outside of the rules which the class has drawn up in its own favour, and which, for some reason, I am not prone to value all that highly.

I did say that my argument was for prior to the 17th century. In the Victorian era, the British monarchy continued to exist solely by the power of respect for tradition.

Granted, although that may simply have been poor choice on my part; the monarchs of Prussia/Germany, Russia, France and so forth still wielded effective political power, and they had no more legitimate grounds. What was the fundamental difference between Norton and Alexander II, other than the fact that the latter's declaration of imperial sovereignty had the support of the political apparatus? It's not as if the nominal determinants of monarchical authority- "right of birth" being the main one- invariably result in such power or are necessary prerequisites of it.

I would say "means of imposition" is an essential ground for every government, from dictators to democracies. If it does not exist, the government will fail. But that means can come in many forms including force, tradition, popular support, etc.

You don't believe in the possibility of government by consent?

 

[say1988]

You don't believe in the possibility of government by consent?

It is a means of imposition.