If one country could achieve the common good of another country better than that country could, then would it be right for that country to ask to be a

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
If one country could achieve the common good of another country better than that country could, then would it be right for that country to ask to be annexed (or sold or etc.) to the other (better) country?

Likewise, we know that it is good for laws to change if the change will be indisputably good to the people and the common good.

Does this mean that if there exists an especially benighted people, and an especially enlightened people, that the latter could take over the former’s government in order to bring “indisputably” better laws to them?
 
Why don’t the people who like the other country better just move there instead of trying to force everyone who is perfectly happy where they are to be annexed by a country they don’t want to be a part of?
 
Sounds like someone has drunk the KOOL-AID of the liberal elites…both government and the Church.

Liberal Social Justice is wrong.

The Church teaches to good of the individual NOT the collective good of the masses (groups).
 
How can you annex a country without threatening to kill a whole bunch of people?
 
fakename said:
If one country could achieve the common good of another country better than that country could, then would it be right for that country to ask to be annexed (or sold or etc.) to the other (better) country?

Likewise, we know that it is good for laws to change if the change will be indisputably good to the people and the common good.

Does this mean that if there exists an especially benighted people, and an especially enlightened people, that the latter could take over the former’s government in order to bring “indisputably” better laws to them?
Click to expand...
Although I don’t really know the relative good of one country over the other, there are two examples in recent history of a smaller nation requesting annexation to the larger.
  1. The Republic of Texas requested annexation to the United States, and was eventually admitted as a State.
  2. The Dominion of Newfoundland voluntarily gave up responsible government and by referendum, joined Canada as its tenth province in 1949.
 
Bill_Martin said:
Why don’t the people who like the other country better just move there instead of trying to force everyone who is perfectly happy where they are to be annexed by a country they don’t want to be a part of?
Click to expand...
What happens when you apply the Just War criteria?
 
:eek: Let’s give it a shot!

Dear Vatican City, :highprayer:

Can you take us in? :christmastree1:
Love, America :love:
 
it’s the “etc” that concerns me. Are you talking about a small nation applying for membership, or negotiating union with another? Or are we talking about armed annexation? The two are VERY different.
 
St_Francis said:
What happens when you apply the Just War criteria?
Click to expand...
Why would that change things? If I don’t want to be part of France, I don’t move there. I shouldn’t be forced to be a part of them because somebody decided that they would serve the common good better than the US.
 
CaptFun said:
:eek: Let’s give it a shot!

Dear Vatican City, :highprayer:

Can you take us in? :christmastree1:
Code: 
           Love, America :love:
Click to expand...
That was adorable!! 😃

At the OP: I would imagine that if the second country voted by majority to allow it, then they might be able to be annexed to the first country. I imagine it would be wrong to cause the second country to become part of the first if the populace opposed it.
 
TheDoors said:
it’s the “etc” that concerns me. Are you talking about a small nation applying for membership, or negotiating union with another? Or are we talking about armed annexation? The two are VERY different.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about things like the republics of Texas and California so don’t worry about the etc. (I was also thinking about how the Austrians gained their lands through marriage which is sort of like voluntary annexation).

But the second question definitely leaves the question of war open. If a government is unable to see the benefits of a good change, should that government be toppled by one that does, with the latter now administering the people of the former?

We know that just war doctrine might be against it, if it were not for this: “(a) If the uncivilized nation lacks a government and suffers from disorder, it is an act of charity for a civilized nation to set up a government there which will act for the benefit of the people of the country. It is also lawful to make war on those who resist the government thus established.” catholicapologetics.info/morality/warfare/war.htm

Now to lack a government could simply mean “lacking a good government” and to suffer disorder could mean simply “it has order which is out of the order of right reason”. Therefore, it seems that a government could take over another government which isn’t operating as effectively as it could (assuming as I do, that a state has the duty to fulfill its ends and therefore a duty to find the best way to fulfill such ends, for it is prudent to do what you must do best, if everything is equal).
 
fakename said:
I was thinking about things like the republics of Texas and California so don’t worry about the etc. (I was also thinking about how the Austrians gained their lands through marriage which is sort of like voluntary annexation).

But the second question definitely leaves the question of war open. If a government is unable to see the benefits of a good change, should that government be toppled by one that does, with the latter now administering the people of the former?

We know that just war doctrine might be against it, if it were not for this: “(a) If the uncivilized nation lacks a government and suffers from disorder, it is an act of charity for a civilized nation to set up a government there which will act for the benefit of the people of the country. It is also lawful to make war on those who resist the government thus established.” catholicapologetics.info/morality/warfare/war.htm

Now to lack a government could simply mean “lacking a good government” and to suffer disorder could mean simply “it has order which is out of the order of right reason”. Therefore, it seems that a government could take over another government which isn’t operating as effectively as it could (assuming as I do, that a state has the duty to fulfill its ends and therefore a duty to find the best way to fulfill such ends, for it is prudent to do what you must do best, if everything is equal).
Click to expand...
This question to me illustrates the superiority of the Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy over a presidential one. Its processes and procedures allow for a government to fall without the scourge of war. Of course, realistically speaking, only a minority government is likely to fall.
 
Many of the United States did that. Notably Texas and California which were Republics
when they asked to join the Union. (USA). 🙂

Less theory, more empirical data. :tiphat:
 
You’re just asking for trouble. If I understand you correctly a failed state is asking a stable nation to take over.

So is failure A is taken over by prosperous B would A become a colony? How will deal with the inevitable independence movement? Not to mention that trying A’s problems would make B a lot less prosperous.

Citizens of A are given equal rights now that they’ve been absorbed by B. This totally upsets the political balance and probably leads to nativist parties.

Theoretical (but totally unrealistic) scenarios:
Algeria asks to reunite with France.
Both Israelis and Palestinians decide they were better off under the British Mandate.
Mexico (or at least some states) ask for admission to the US as states.

The only successful real-world example I can think of is reunion of Germany and it was hugely expensive for the Bundesrepublik.
 
didymus said:
You’re just asking for trouble. If I understand you correctly a failed state is asking a stable nation to take over.

So is failure A is taken over by prosperous B would A become a colony? How will deal with the inevitable independence movement? Not to mention that trying A’s problems would make B a lot less prosperous.

Citizens of A are given equal rights now that they’ve been absorbed by B. This totally upsets the political balance and probably leads to nativist parties.

Theoretical (but totally unrealistic) scenarios:
Algeria asks to reunite with France.
Both Israelis and Palestinians decide they were better off under the British Mandate.
Mexico (or at least some states) ask for admission to the US as states.

The only successful real-world example I can think of is reunion of Germany and it was hugely expensive for the Bundesrepublik.
Click to expand...
Texas did just fine, as did Newfoundland. Neither of them are colonies; they are integral parts of their respective nations now.
 
porthos11 said:
Texas did just fine, as did Newfoundland. Neither of them are colonies; they are integral parts of their respective nations now.
Click to expand...
The OP specified:
Does this mean that if there exists an especially benighted people, and an especially enlightened people, that the latter could take over the former’s government in order to bring “indisputably” better laws to them?
Click to expand...
Neither condition applies to Texas or Newfoundland, though I might be tempted to call Texans benighted just to ruffle their fur a little. 😃

Both Texas & Newfoundland are cases of offspring reuniting with the parent state.
 
KScoyote said:
Sounds like someone has drunk the KOOL-AID of the liberal elites…both government and the Church.

Liberal Social Justice is wrong.

The Church teaches to good of the individual NOT the collective good of the masses (groups).
Click to expand...
Actually, the common good is basic Catholic teaching. It isn’t quite the same thing as “collective good,” but it isn’t purely individualistic either.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top