When should a country lose its right to self-rule?

[bhsup]

Recently I was called a troll because I was disgusted that a so-called western democracy actually allowed utilities be turned off, leading to a child's death. So I suggested in all sincerity that it lose its independence and revert back to the power that ruled it for centuries before. Starting this thread in the chamber because I have no intention of dealing with calls of trolling, so I'll let the mods deal with that. But also, let's try to keep this fairly country-generic regardless.

But anyway, at what point does a country have to become such a craphole that its neighbors should feel obligated to intervene for its own good and relieve said country of the responsibility of self-rule?

 

[Kyriakos]

Look at your own place for an answer to that Maybe in your logic it won't be equally a "life altering hell" after Mexico takes it back.

 

[peter grimes]

I expect Canada to invade and sort out our safety net in short order...

 

[Glassfan]

Look at your own place for an answer to that Maybe in your logic it won't be equally a "life altering hell" after Mexico takes it back.

It appears you're taking this personal...

 

[Kyriakos]

It appears you're taking this personal...

Really? Certainly nothing should give this impression.

 

[Glassfan]

Presumably you're being sarcastic. But following him over from the Tavern is a bit creepy.

 

[Glassfan]

...But anyway, at what point does a country have to become such a craphole that its neighbors should feel obligated to intervene for its own good and relieve said country of the responsibility of self-rule?

Clearly Somolia in the 90s. No government - warlords taking the UN relief supplies - as well as UN personel hostage. Staging area for Pirates. The US tried to help but clearly dropped the ball.

 

[bhsup]

That and Haiti are a couple that spring to mind, yeah. And unfortunately as you pointed out, ball dropped on both accounts (more than once.) Which actually brings up another facet of this. How best to do it? Clearly America needs lessons in nation building, but is there anyone that does a good job of it?

 

[Glassfan]

One might suppose the UN in that roll. Except that the UN is utterly useless. We need an international FEMA.

 

[Gucumatz]

Ethiopia and Kenya have tried to intervene in Somalia as well - although neither state is overly prosperous either (relatively though). Its an interesting question though. Certainly Somalians would be better off if more capital flowed into it and reached the masses - something that happens easier in more prosperous states. Of course an unprosperous state will drain more resources from its overseer and eventually create conflict as well.

When a state is in such a poor situation, it often does lose some of its self-rule to other states or even corporations that dominate what wealth flows in the state itself and the clout its bought. Is cultural destruction and political irrelevance worth it in order to survive in a changing world? If you simply exchange political relevance but maintain cultural identity then is it still?

 

[Azale]

It appears you're taking this personal...

He should. Greece has been destroyed by international institutions, the EU, and its national elite.

One might suppose the UN in that roll. Except that the UN is utterly useless. We need an international FEMA.

Clearly America needs lessons in nation building, but is there anyone that does a good job of it?

Define "a good job". The International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the US Treasury have been at it for decades and the world mostly is in ideologically in lockstep with them. They have been very successful on that front.

Has this been the best thing for the world? No.

 

[timtofly]

Look at your own place for an answer to that Maybe in your logic it won't be equally a "life altering hell" after Mexico takes it back.

I don't think that Mexico is in any better shape.

Personally, I do not understand the point of the "loosing" self rule. Having another country come in does not restore self rule.

But the answer to the question would be when the elected started selling out their own countries interest for global or imperialistic reasons.

The only other reason would be where we start killing off each other and can no longer keep ourselves civil.

 

[Kyriakos]

Presumably you're being sarcastic. But following him over from the Tavern is a bit creepy.

Uh, you are projecting too much, man. I assume we all just post threads here so as to enlighten each other and not for any petty or creepy (sic) reasons, and neither does anyone post in them in reaction to those- cause they just don't exist.

 

[potatokiosk]

Recently I was called a troll because I was disgusted that a so-called western democracy actually allowed utilities be turned off, leading to a child's death. So I suggested in all sincerity that it lose its independence and revert back to the power that ruled it for centuries before. Starting this thread in the chamber because I have no intention of dealing with calls of trolling, so I'll let the mods deal with that. But also, let's try to keep this fairly country-generic regardless.

But anyway, at what point does a country have to become such a craphole that its neighbors should feel obligated to intervene for its own good and relieve said country of the responsibility of self-rule?

In general, the costs and collateral damage associated with conquering a country are so great that it's not worthwhile to topple a foreign government and attempt to set up a better one. Also, you can't trust a powerful country to act in the best interests of a weaker country so a conquest carried out for supposedly humanitarian aims could easily amount to nothing more than imperialism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Recently I was called a troll because I was disgusted that a so-called western democracy actually allowed utilities be turned off, leading to a child's death. So I suggested in all sincerity that it lose its independence and revert back to the power that ruled it for centuries before. Starting this thread in the chamber because I have no intention of dealing with calls of trolling, so I'll let the mods deal with that. But also, let's try to keep this fairly country-generic regardless.

But anyway, at what point does a country have to become such a craphole that its neighbors should feel obligated to intervene for its own good and relieve said country of the responsibility of self-rule?

It should never lose its sovereignty. However, it would be foolish to imagine that a country can only help another if it rules it. If the United States is so worried about the status of another country's infrastructure, then they should help them to build it themselves, in a way that genuinely helps that country and its people, and does not merely serve as an excuse to expand US corporate power, such as the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan is. An honest backward flow of wealth into the developing world would be an enormous gesture of humanity by the First World.

 

[dutchfire]

Recently I was called a troll because I was disgusted that a so-called western democracy actually allowed utilities be turned off, leading to a child's death. So I suggested in all sincerity that it lose its independence and revert back to the power that ruled it for centuries before. Starting this thread in the chamber because I have no intention of dealing with calls of trolling, so I'll let the mods deal with that. But also, let's try to keep this fairly country-generic regardless.

But anyway, at what point does a country have to become such a craphole that its neighbors should feel obligated to intervene for its own good and relieve said country of the responsibility of self-rule?

When Oil is found.

 

[Traitorfish]

Countries have rights?

 

[bhsup]

Our founding fathers seemed to think so...

and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's an appeal to international convention though, not natural right. What they're saying in that passage is "we're independent, now treat us like it", rather than than asserting a right to declare independence; a demand rather than a justification. The parts of the Declaration that dwell on the American right to independence issue emphasise a social contract which the Crown is alleged to have broken, which is a domestic rather than internationally-orientated argument. There's really nothing in the Declaration, and really at the time could not be, that makes a clear case for national sovereignty as understood today.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Could be. But do countries have rights?

edit: Or more to the point, do cross-posters? :grumpy: