What gives a nation state the right to exist?

[FireFromHeaven]

I heard the idea of the right to exist thrown around in a debate over Palestine and Israel. I was wondering if anyone could point me towards a philosopher who approaches this idea from a catholic perspective. Why do nations have the right to exist? Where do these rights come from? How can these rights be lost?

 

[Oreoracle]

It seems that most philosophers implicitly assume that having a society is better than not having one. Hobbes doesn’t directly address the right to exist as far as I know, but he offers a rather pessimistic view of humanity’s natural state without society, which he describes as a state of war.

But I think your question isn’t so much “what gives us the right to form societies?” but rather “what gives us the right to regard one society as distinct from another?” which is a more subtle question.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

It seems that most philosophers implicitly assume that having a society is better than not having one. Hobbes doesn’t directly address the right to exist as far as I know, but he offers a rather pessimistic view of humanity’s natural state without society, which he describes as a state of war.

But I think your question isn’t so much “what gives us the right to form societies?” but rather “what gives us the right to regard one society as distinct from another?” which is a more subtle question.

Yes that is much more along the lines of what I am asking. Pardon my poor phrasing.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Something I’ve wondered about too. And at what point, if the system seems too “broken” is it right to attempt to “fix” it by things such as secession, redrawing of boundaries, petitions, etc.? And how to avoid violence and war in doing so.

 

[LHJOHNSON]

I heard the idea of the right to exist thrown around in a debate over Palestine and Israel. I was wondering if anyone could point me towards a philosopher who approaches this idea from a catholic perspective. Why do nations have the right to exist? Where do these rights come from? How can these rights be lost?

From the “Declaration of Independance.”
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the** laws of nature and of nature’s God **entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Maybe this will help. Good question! Peace be with you,L

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=25685

 

[oldcelt]

To the OP: The consent of the governed…beyond that, there can be no state.

John

 

[GratefulFred]

Don’t know if any philosopher has dealt with this question.

But the logic to me goes like this:

God meant Man to be free. God gave man woman and commanded them multiply. Family is THE most basic unit in society. Families cooperate to provide for themselves more than they could separately. Organization is necessary. Disputes must be settle fairly. Safety from those who would harm them is necessary.

At some point the “tribe” cooperates with other tribes. At some point the size becomes a nation state.

The question becomes, for me at least, is just how far a family, a tribe, a nation state can go in looking after its own affairs when such effort imposes hardship on another nation state.

History is replete with abuse of power, and subjugation, and the need for self defense to right wrongs.

We are called to be good stewards of our resources. We are called to love one another. Those nation states that have done well by this dual standard are honored. Those that seek their own self interest to the significant harm of others lack honor.

 

[oldcelt]

Don’t know if any philosopher has dealt with this question.

But the logic to me goes like this:

God meant Man to be free. God gave man woman and commanded them multiply. Family is THE most basic unit in society. Families cooperate to provide for themselves more than they could separately. Organization is necessary. Disputes must be settle fairly. Safety from those who would harm them is necessary.

At some point the “tribe” cooperates with other tribes. At some point the size becomes a nation state.

The question becomes, for me at least, is just how far a family, a tribe, a nation state can go in looking after its own affairs when such effort imposes hardship on another nation state.

History is replete with abuse of power, and subjugation, and the need for self defense to right wrongs.

We are called to be good stewards of our resources. We are called to love one another. Those nation states that have done well by this dual standard are honored. Those that seek their own self interest to the significant harm of others lack honor.

I agree with every thing but the bolded. Family evolved independent of any divine involvement, Even lower life forms have sexes…only the most advanced animals have families.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You asked for a Catholic point of view. Here is a brief passage from the longer article on “Society” in the Catholic Encyclopedia

**“The first obvious requisite in all society is authority. Without this there can be no secure coordination of effort nor permanency of cooperation. No secure coordination, for men’s judgment will differ on the relative value of means for the common purpose, men’s choice will vary on means of like value; and unless there is some headship, confusion will result. **No permanence of cooperation, for the best of men relax in their initial resolutions, and to hold them at a coordinate task, a tight rein and a steady spur is needed. In fact, reluctant though man is to surrender the smallest title of independence and submit in the slightest his freedom to the bidding of another, there never has been in the history of the world a successful, nor even a serious attempt at cooperative effort without authoritative guidance (see Civil Authority). Starting with this definition and requirement, philosophy finds itself confronted with two kinds of society, the artificial or conventional, and the natural; and on pursuing the subject, finds the latter differentiating itself into domestic society, or the family, civil society, or the State, and religious society, or the Church.”

The right of a nation to exist depends on accepted authority and a contract between the rulers and the ruled, whether the authority is monarchy, aristocracy, republic, or democracy (as in ancient Athens).

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Society

This article emphasizes the necessary connection between religion and the civil contract as a way to honorably bind people together according to both the divine and the natural law. The state begins with the stability of the family, and without that stability there is no firewall against the absorption and oppression of the individual by the state. The fact that the family in the U.S. today is so fragmented and fractured is a clear sign that the state will assume more and more power over the dependency of the individual for its largesse, until the individual is no longer free to act or think without the permission of the State.

 

[oldcelt]

You asked for a Catholic point of view. Here is a brief passage from the longer article on “Society” in the Catholic Encyclopedia

**“The first obvious requisite in all society is authority. Without this there can be no secure coordination of effort nor permanency of cooperation. No secure coordination, for men’s judgment will differ on the relative value of means for the common purpose, men’s choice will vary on means of like value; and unless there is some headship, confusion will result. **No permanence of cooperation, for the best of men relax in their initial resolutions, and to hold them at a coordinate task, a tight rein and a steady spur is needed. In fact, reluctant though man is to surrender the smallest title of independence and submit in the slightest his freedom to the bidding of another, there never has been in the history of the world a successful, nor even a serious attempt at cooperative effort without authoritative guidance (see Civil Authority). Starting with this definition and requirement, philosophy finds itself confronted with two kinds of society, the artificial or conventional, and the natural; and on pursuing the subject, finds the latter differentiating itself into domestic society, or the family, civil society, or the State, and religious society, or the Church.”

The right of a nation to exist depends on accepted authority and a contract between the rulers and the ruled, whether the authority is monarchy, aristocracy, republic, or democracy (as in ancient Athens).

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Society

This article emphasizes the necessary connection between religion and the civil contract as a way to honorably bind people together according to both the divine and the natural law. The state begins with the stability of the family, and without that stability there is no firewall against the absorption and oppression of the individual by the state. The fact that the family in the U.S. today is so fragmented and fractured is a clear sign that the state will assume more and more power over the dependency of the individual for its largesse, until the individual is no longer free to act or think without the permission of the State.

In one line…the Consent of the Governed.

 

[porthos11]

Oh, I don’t know about just the consent of the governed. I’ve seen that having plenty of guns and soldiers works too.

 

[oldcelt]

Oh, I don’t know about just the consent of the governed. I’ve seen that having plenty of guns and soldiers works too.

Of course, dictators exist, but they are not a nation-state. They are a totalitarian regime and have no legitimacy. They may brainwash their people into compliance and even worship (North Korea comes to mind), but their control is only at the end of a gun.
That is not government, it is suppression of true government.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course, dictators exist, but they are not a nation-state. They are a totalitarian regime and have no legitimacy. They may brainwash their people into compliance and even worship (North Korea comes to mind), but their control is only at the end of a gun.
That is not government, it is suppression of true government.

Four sentences. Well done!

But if the people accept their tyrants, they are a nation and state. Thus with Hitler, Mao, Stalin and North Korea. The only way to escape oppressive government is to rebel against it. This is what the Founders did. Then they created a nation state that became acceptable to the governed, more or less. In Christian nations, even in the Middle Ages, the Church held kings to be answerable to God. So did the American Founders.

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

But the influence of religion in tempering the power of tyrants began long before the Founders.

Stephen Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury in the early 13th century, was not merely the man who divided the Scriptures into the chapters we know them by today in both the Catholic and Protestant bibles. Nor was he just the supposed author of the immortal verse, Veni Sancte Spiritus. What he will be remembered most for is his role in getting King John to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter). John, a tyrant of England if ever there was one, was famous for lording it over the barons by enacting any laws he wished to enact at any time he wished to enact them, and without the consent of the barons. Langton, at the urging of Pope Innocent III, talked John into recognizing and respecting a formal and fixed declaration of the rights of the barons. Langton’s role was pivotal, siding with and leading the barons until the King, realizing that all the world was against him, caved in and signed the Charter. Langton later became such a loathsome presence to the king that the latter prevailed upon the pope to remove him from his episcopal office (after the deaths of the pope and the king, Langton was reinstated as Primate of England).

 

[oldcelt]

Four sentences. Well done!

But if the people accept their tyrants, they are a nation and state. Thus with Hitler, Mao, Stalin and North Korea. The only way to escape oppressive government is to rebel against it. This is what the Founders did. Then they created a nation state that became acceptable to the governed, more or less. In Christian nations, even in the Middle Ages, the Church held kings to be answerable to God. So did the American Founders.

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

But the influence of religion in tempering the power of tyrants began long before the Founders.

Stephen Cardinal Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury in the early 13th century, was not merely the man who divided the Scriptures into the chapters we know them by today in both the Catholic and Protestant bibles. Nor was he just the supposed author of the immortal verse, Veni Sancte Spiritus. What he will be remembered most for is his role in getting King John to sign the Magna Carta (Great Charter). John, a tyrant of England if ever there was one, was famous for lording it over the barons by enacting any laws he wished to enact at any time he wished to enact them, and without the consent of the barons. Langton, at the urging of Pope Innocent III, talked John into recognizing and respecting a formal and fixed declaration of the rights of the barons. Langton’s role was pivotal, siding with and leading the barons until the King, realizing that all the world was against him, caved in and signed the Charter. Langton later became such a loathsome presence to the king that the latter prevailed upon the pope to remove him from his episcopal office (after the deaths of the pope and the king, Langton was reinstated as Primate of England).

You have mentioned one instance of a clergyman leading to positive social reform. What about the many inverse situations…Cardinal Wolsey, Cardinal Richelieu, Pius V, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Martin Luther, the clerics in Salem…and so on. These people were either detrimental to liberty or supportive of tyrants.
The US founders were children of the enlightenment and severely limited the role of religion from the outset. In my mind, we are much better off for their efforts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You have mentioned one instance of a clergyman leading to positive social reform. What about the many inverse situations…Cardinal Wolsey, Cardinal Richelieu, Pius V, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX, Martin Luther, the clerics in Salem…and so on. These people were either detrimental to liberty or supportive of tyrants.
The US founders were children of the enlightenment and severely limited the role of
religion from the outset. In my mind, we are much better off for their efforts.

Yes, and what about the popes who promoted the crusades and stopped the sweep of Islam throughout the West? If it were not for the Crusades, you might be writing your posts in Arabic today.

The Founders did not severely limit the role of religion, and in fact were friendly to it by protecting religious liberty in the 1st Amendment. It is the anti-Christian secularists today who would like to stop religion in its tracks and take every opportunity they can in the courts to do so.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th Century Frenchman who visited the New World and vigorously studied the source of America’s greatness, put it as succinctly as any outsider could in his book* Democracy in America*. “Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, most of the abolitionists in pre Civil War America were Christian, and were instrumental in developing escape routes from the South to the North for escaped slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian pastor who spearheaded the movement to obtain civil rights for black Americans. He was joined in this by many other pastors across America, both white and black. Today you find orphanages, soup kitchens, prison ministries and poverty assistance promoted by all the religious denominations, not to mention the vast worldwide network of Christian missionaries who bring health aid, food, and education skills assistance to the third world nations. All these good works are buttressed by the fact that above all Christian teachings promote social welfare and solidarity, along with being shining beacons of moral persuasion to all people of good will.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, most of the abolitionists in pre Civil War America were Christian, and were instrumental in developing escape routes from the South to the North for escaped slaves. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian pastor who spearheaded the movement to obtain civil rights for black Americans. He was joined in this by many other pastors across America, both white and black. Today you find orphanages, soup kitchens, prison ministries and poverty assistance promoted by all the religious denominations, not to mention the vast worldwide network of Christian missionaries who bring health aid, food, and education skills assistance to the third world nations. All these good works are buttressed by the fact that above all Christian teachings promote social welfare and solidarity, along with being shining beacons of moral persuasion to all people of good will.

Virtually all of the slave-holders were Christian; as were the men who fought to destroy the Union. I’ll agree that, applied properly, Christianity can be a great benefit to social justice; so can many religious beliefs. The problem is that they all have the other side of the coin. Lincoln was, at best, a Deist. He knew the words from his youth and used them beautifully, but his true belief is very much up for discussion.
The shining beacon bit is a little over the top, Reaganesque if I dare say; But very nicely written.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Virtually all of the slave-holders were Christian; as were the men who fought to destroy the Union.

I’ll grant you that. But there are no doubt many of these same slave holders in hell.

Being a nominal Christian is no guaranty you will be a good Christian.

Think Judas. :bigyikes:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The shining beacon bit is a little over the top, Reaganesque if I dare say; But very nicely written.

I had in mind a more eminent source. :tiphat:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”—Jesus, from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:14-16.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

From the “Declaration of Independance.”
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the** laws of nature and of nature’s God **entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Maybe this will help. Good question! Peace be with you,L

wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=25685

The Indians of North American might have disagreed, since the land was taken from them by European colonists. Who gave the European colonists the right to take the land?

At the time the Declaration of Independence was drawn up, the slave trade was alive and well. Who gave the slave trading nations the right to usurp the rights of the African tribes?

The Aboriginals in Australia could ask a similar question. Who gave the British crown the right to declare the continent it’s property?

This question is one that just goes around in circles when you think about it. Yugoslavia was a nation in name for a while, but reverted to number of warring parties following the fall of the Wall. What defined the nations that warred on each other?

We’re currently seeing in the Russian-Ukraine conflict a difference of opinion over the Crimea (amongst other things). Who does Crimea belong to - the Russians or the Ukrainians, after Kruschev transferred it from Russia to the Ukraine with a stroke of the pen?

If an Asian nation divided Australia and then called it their nation, who would have given them the right to do so? The Dutch and Portuguese divided Timor between them centuries ago - this led to a violent war with the Indonesians in East Timor beginning in the 1970’s. Who gave the Dutch, the Portuguese or the Indonesians the right to consider the territory their own?

I suppose if God is the author of history, then He decides the fate of nations. But if so, then He’s the author of a messy and violent system.