“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, AS TO THEM shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That is an eloquent statement of natural law which I did not include because although important, it is general background of natural law principles. It is a statement of the right of a people to secede from its government. What follows is the application of this general right of secession to the issue of and justification for valid American colonial secession, which I included.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with it.
“That is an eloquent statement of natural law which I did not include because although important, it is general background of natural law principles.”
When reference to “Consent of the Governed”, “as to them shall seem most likely” and “Safety and Happiness” is relegated to boiler plate or general background, it becomes easy for other people’s preferences to preclude secession entirely.
This DOI theory does not require the permission of the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Empire, or even an affirmative vote of the U.N. General Assembly for people to secede.
But absent the use of superior force, secession might require permission from friends, neighbors, others who also inhabit the same area as the people who want to secede, unless of course those people want to secede by leaving the area and setting up somewhere else. And those people who don't favor secession might express their view through whatever form of government they have.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with it.
How so? As I indicated above, the goal of secession may not be shared by all the people inhabiting whatever area is under consideration. If part of the people want to secede, part of the people don't, and part of the people just don't care, who has the right? If the people who want to secede are concentrated in one area it may be simpler, but not if they are evenly distributed among the rest.
This DOI theory does not require the permission of the King, or the Prime Minister, or the President of the Empire, or even an affirmative vote of the U.N. General Assembly for people to secede.
But absent the use of superior force, secession might require permission from friends, neighbors, others who also inhabit the same area as the people who want to secede, unless of course those people want to secede by leaving the area and setting up somewhere else. And those people who don't favor secession might express their view through whatever form of government they have.
The application flows from this statement of natural law, it does not conflict with it.
How so? As I indicated above, the goal of secession may not be shared by all the people inhabiting whatever area is under consideration. If part of the people want to secede, part of the people don't, and part of the people just don't care, who has the right? If the people who want to secede are concentrated in one area it may be simpler, but not if they are evenly distributed among the rest.