Defense of Liberty. National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie

The criterion of support must be "agreement to live under given a choice not to".

"...given a choice not to" is subjective. There are real life dilemmas where two options are available, but each seems equally unacceptable.

I spend my life savings and several years of my own labor to build a home and a productive farm, but the home as I wanted it is not marketable at near the value it is to me. My parents and in-laws are elderly and live close by where I can care for them as circumstances denmand. My children and grandchildren also live close by. Now, because annalex and 90 of his friends decide to form a government and draw "national" boundaries which incorporate my home and the homes of my loved ones, and they decide that smoking, alcohol, cursing (blasphemy), high cholesterol foods, firearms, and non-"organic" milk will be disallowed, taxes will be imposed to build a water and sewer system for the whole republic (I have a well and septic system that function quite well). Where is my choice? (3A) Allow inimpeded renunciation of citizenship and freedom of emigration.

As above, there are all kinds of circumstances which make the unobstructed-by-govenment "freedom" of emigration have no resemblance to freedom of choice (about things which affect no one but me and mine.)

real life dilemmas

I understand that, but I don't see any other criterion that is between mere disagreement with particulars and tyranny. Any kind of freedom means painful choices; you are never entitled to an outcome that feels comfortable. Like I said before, I may prefer a different constitution, but precisely because I weigh the pain of emigration against the pain of having the constitution as written by some dead men 200 years ago, I choose the Constitution. That is a fair test.

It is true that if 90 of my friends claim sovereignty over your farm, then it is a violation of your natural rights. That is in a nutshell, what this article says: that all this self-determination business is a cover for thievery.

(3A) is insufficient absent (1) and (2). If 90 of my friends found a way to form a government without violating your rights, and that complies with (1) and (2) then you have no basis to complain.

[snip] ----- the national government of a big nation does not have a naturally-lawful power to govern over an ethnic enclave if it is peaceful and wants to have its own government. At the same time the enclave does not have a naturally-lawful power to prevent an outside agent from enforcing individual rights. ------- [snip]
[snip] ------- at the same time, the US government may not tell Texas (or a county in Texas) what laws to have as long as the lawmaking in Texas is consented to by the Texans and US citizens outside of Texas maintain their individual rights.

-----------------------------------------

Your thought processes above really puzzle me. -- In the first portion you say individual rights can be enforced by an outside agent, [I would assume the agent is the US government, using the constitution]. --
-- Then, in the next portion - you switch & claim the US government cannot do so.

Clearly, under the 14th amendment the federal constitution does not allow states to deprive any US citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Do you dispute this?

[please, try to be to the point, as your digressions are one of my problems in following your thoughts]

Thought you'd never ask.

A government has a duty to protects the rights of its citizens anywhere. But it may not make laws outside of its jurisdiction, nor may it invalidate local laws if they respect individual rights. I think the confusion is between individual rights and statutory law. Rights are universal; law is local.

I don't dispute that the 14th amendment prevents the states from injuring individual rights.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.