Are people free to choose their own representation through government? Or is government the master of people? Who benefits from centralization of power?
Yes. I'm sure if you were able to get enough of the population behind you the government would allow it. The chance that you'd get that many is slim to none. But it begs a possible experiment.
Why not? Why should idealism be worth the price of lives or the well-being others? I don't see how any argument from this can be based on anything but a particularly opinionated appeal to consequence. I mean, I'm open to your interpretation, it's why I formed it as a question.
I voted yes, but I think the answer is much more complex than that. It depends on what you mean by "right of secession". Are you asking whether part of a nation should be able to claim independence without expecting any negative repercussions, despite how unjust the reason for seceding might be? Because under those circumstances, I would say no.
Are you saying freedoms should be sacrificed for utilitarian purposes? The proper role of government is to protect freedom.
I guess the only offense could be is if the established government has as a major investment in the area. For example if we are talking about the US, it would not be proper for a state or region of states to secede without repayment for federal property.
I disagree, in my opinion the proper role of government is to prosper as an entity so it's people prosper. Freedom doesn't always equal prosperity...
I think the proper role of government should be to keep chaos at bay, and protect the people living within the governing bodies boundaries. But that is a whole different thread.
I used the word prosper because it's broad enough to encompass a lot of things. Normally a prospering country has done everything you listed and more. If I set out to define entirely what I believe a governments proper role is..... man we could be here awhile
How does a government prosper? "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -Jefferson "The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." - Mark Twain
I put no. But I think it depends really. Was it ok for the south to secede from the Union? Not in my opinion. and as for Kosovo here are people who recognize its independence and who doesn't. As of August 2008, its independence is recognised by 45 countries, including the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, and opposed by others, including the People's Republic of China, Spain, India, Russia and Serbia, which continues to claim sovereignty over Kosovo (source:wiki)
What happens when the freedoms and wellbeing lay in contradiction? Shall lives be sacrificed for some kind of convoluted and esoteric idealism? What good is freedom to a dead man?
I don't think so, the right to life is a freedom the government should protect. Can you provide an example where freedom is a hindrance on life?
What would you call the American secession from England? Or hundreds of other examples throughout history of a people in favor of autonomy?