The Main Focus of the Taiwan-China Issue: Historical Rights or Systems of Government?

[Audie]

It's popular twaddle.

It sure is dumb tho

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What gives a particular power-élite the "right" to dominate a region/people? Do the Crips have a historical right do dominate certain Los Angeles neighborhoods, and the Bloods other ones?
National boundaries are always changing. A given region might have had a dozen historical governments over the past couple hundred years. Which one, if any, has the valid claim?

Me, I prefer Democracy. Let the people decide how or by whom they're to be governed.

Isn't that what the United States said to King George III?

 

[Revoltingest]

It sure is dumb tho

it feeds a perspective, eg, anti-NATO, anti-USA,
MIC conspiracy theory, anti-capitalism

 

[Audie]

it feeds a perspective, eg, anti-NATO, anti-USA,
MIC conspiracy theory, anti-capitalism

All of which is dumber than a field of stumps

 

[Revoltingest]

All of which is dumber than a field of stumps

Usually it's a "box of rocks".

 

[Debater Slayer]

it feeds a perspective, eg, anti-NATO, anti-USA,
MIC conspiracy theory, anti-capitalism

All of which is dumber than a field of stumps

I see major reasons to criticize the US, the US military, and capitalism, as well as less significant reasons to criticize NATO. The CCP's hostility toward Taiwan is just not really one of them.

 

[sayak83]

Most of the time when the subject of Taiwan and China comes up, I see the focus shifting to being about Taiwan's democracy versus China's iron-clad dictatorship. This seems perfectly understandable to me: most people, me included, would much rather live in a free democracy than under a genocidal dictatorship like that of the CCP if given the choice. However, isn't the historical right to the island of Taiwan an equally—if not more—central issue?

If China has no historical right to Taiwan, it seems to me that systems of government and the respective levels of freedom they provide are a red herring in this case: even if China were the world's most prosperous, free democracy, it would still have no right to unify Taiwan under one government. Taiwan's independence doesn't hinge on how much freedom and democracy the Chinese government provides or doesn't provide.

On the other hand, if China has a historical right to Taiwan, the system of government is merely a secondary issue. Many governments oppress a sizable portion of their populations, yet the international community most likely wouldn't recognize or support an independent Nation of Pakistani Atheists or a Republic of Saudi Humanists. The US probably wouldn't allow, say, California or Texas to secede either even if they ran a referendum and gained a majority of votes in favor of becoming their own country.

In your opinion, should the main focus in discussions about the Taiwan-China situation be about each country's system of government, or should it be about historical facts and rights to the island? Of course, the CCP's abusive policies make unification of Taiwan under their rule an even harder sell than it would otherwise be, and. democracy and freedom are crucial subjects in the discussion as well. The question isn't whether systems of government should be in the discussion at all; it's whether they should be the main focus thereof.

I personally do not consider non-democratic governments are legitimate. An illegitimate government has no rights.
I do not consider any historic periods of occupation as legitimate either since all historically all governments were despotic and hence had no legal legitimacy.
So when it comes to union or separation of nation(s) the only thing that confers legitimacy is:-
1) Both are being ruled by a representative democracy
2) There is clear and impartial plebiscite in favor of such a union/separation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I personally do not consider non-democratic governments are legitimate. An illegitimate government has no rights.
I do not consider any historic periods of occupation as legitimate either since all historically all governments were despotic and hence had no legal legitimacy.
So when it comes to union or separation of nation(s) the only thing that confers legitimacy is:-
1) Both are being ruled by a representative democracy
2) There is clear and impartial plebiscite in favor of such a union/separation.

I think this might sound good in theory, but the practical ramifications may be too unrealistic. For one thing, almost all of the world has been under occupation at one point or another, so are all of our borders illegitimate and in need of being redrawn?

For another thing, does the position you outlined mean that countries ruled by autocracies have no legitimate claim to sovereignty and are therefore fair game to be invaded or have their borders reshaped either by other countries or by the UN?

Finally, I think it can sometimes be quite difficult to delineate the exact lines between non-democratic and democraric countries. How democratic is the US, for example, considering issues like the influence of superdelegates on the Democratic Party's presidential nominations, the Electoral College's choosing presidents who didn't win the popular vote, and the increasing hold of unpopular theocratic measures by politicians? Even if we consider it among the democratic camp, is it democratic enough to be in the position of arbitrating which foreign governments of sovereign nations are legitimate and which aren't?

 

[sayak83]

I think this might sound good in theory, but the practical ramifications may be too unrealistic. For one thing, almost all of the world has been under occupation at one point or another, so are all of our borders illegitimate and in need of being redrawn?

For another thing, does the position you outlined mean that countries ruled by autocracies have no legitimate claim to sovereignty and are therefore fair game to be invaded or have their borders reshaped either by other countries or by the UN?

Finally, I think it can sometimes be quite difficult to delineate the exact lines between non-democratic and democraric countries. How democratic is the US, for example, considering issues like the influence of superdelegates on the Democratic Party's presidential nominations, the Electoral College's choosing presidents who didn't win the popular vote, and the increasing hold of unpopular theocratic measures by politicians? Even if we consider it among the democratic camp, is it democratic enough to be in the position of arbitrating which foreign governments of sovereign nations are legitimate and which aren't?

Regardless of how a nation has come to be, IF currently all its citizens are allowed to participate in a regular multi-choice leadership and government selection process in a reasonably free and fair election process and IF, within that border, there are no large sub-region whose population is consistently clamoring for independence and is not participating (or not allowed to participate) in the government selection process, then the borders of the nation state can be said to be legitimate. Anything can be made better with time. We are discussing a minimum criteria here.
Currently there is no actual rule of law within the community of nation states at all. The more powerful states combine together in shifting alliances with and against each other and have dependent and client states all over who go with them in order to pursue their self-interest. All talk of valid or legal claims is just rhetoric to sway opinion within and without. Fundamentally the world does not have a government with rules (as the Bahai want) and hence, in actuality, there is no law whatsoever in the international order.

 

[Audie]

Usually it's a "box of rocks".

Oh.

I'm not that good at idioms

 

[Audie]

I see major reasons to criticize the US, the US military, and capitalism, as well as less significant reasons to criticize NATO. The CCP's hostility toward Taiwan is just not really one of them.

Human institutions are all flawed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see major reasons to criticize the US, the US military, and capitalism, as well as less significant reasons to criticize NATO. The CCP's hostility toward Taiwan is just not really one of them.

I have criticism for those things too, & also science, democracy,
religion, medicine, movies, Egypt, Sweden, airplane seats, fast
food, & radio stations in Pennsylvania. Oh, socialism too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh.

I'm not that good at idioms

No, yours was most effective.
I just thought you'd enjoy the standard one.
(It rhymes.)

 

[Audie]

No, yours was most effective.
I just thought you'd enjoy the standard one.
(It rhymes.)

I got a bit shy about using American idioms at
NYU coz people would laugh and say I was " cute".

 

[Revoltingest]

I got a bit shy about using American idioms at
NYU coz people would laugh and say I was " cute".

Re-inventing idioms in a foreign language is
amusing because of how it changes the meaning,
or because it achieves the meaning with surprising
wording.
Alas, if you're short & female, "cute" will be applied.
But it beats get'n poked with a sharp stick.

 

[Audie]

Re-inventing idioms in a foreign language is
amusing because of how it changes the meaning,
or because it achieves the meaning with surprising
wording.
Alas, if you're short & female, "cute" will be applied.
But it beats get'n poked with a sharp stick.

Good reason not to be a prophet.
People throw rocks and poke at them
with sharp sticks

 

[lukethethird]

Such twaddle.

Of course it's twaddle, there are no western nation gunships in the China seas provoking China on a daily basis, nor are there western nation fighter jets and military basis surrounding China, that's all twaddle. Nato countries are not courting and backing Taiwan with arms and there is no demonizing of everything China in the western mainstream media, that's all twaddle. Several tens of billions of taxpayers dollars are funding corporate arms and ammunitions manufacturers and dealers all for the sake of Ukraine but it's not about money exchanging hands, that's twaddle, it's really about fighting for democracy, we all know that.

 

[Audie]

Of course it's twaddle, there are no western nation gunships in the China seas provoking China on a daily basis, nor are there western nation fighter jets and military basis surrounding China, that's all twaddle. Nato countries are not courting and backing Taiwan with arms and there is no demonizing of everything China in the western mainstream media, that's all twaddle. Several tens of billions of taxpayers dollars are funding corporate arms and ammunitions manufacturers and dealers all for the sake of Ukraine but it's not about money exchanging hands, that's twaddle, it's really about fighting for democracy, we all know that.

Aww a cute widdle snark -post.

Too bad it missed.

The twaddle being of course that NATO
wants a war with China.