USA fought 2.

Not only that but in the case of Estonia and most former USSR countries, if any people used your logic then there would be widespread calls to expel every Russian and their families that came here post WW2 from our country. Thankfully that is not the case.

It kinda sucks that if we ever do get invaded, it will 100% be on the pretext of "liberating our brothers and sisters that are being persecuted". Ship a bunch of people to die in Siberia, send in their replacements from Moscow to handle things and you essentially have a casus belli for eternity if you only manage to keep brainwashing your people abroad with your media.

This is a crazy thought, but maybe the highly intricate issues of borders, sovereignty, and regional separatist sentiments can't be distilled down to first principles that apply uniformly to all situations and we need to instead address them on a case by case basis.

You can blindly assume that the Russian government is at fault every time they make the news though.

true

These are lies.

nope

I don`t think so it goes like that ways. Just remember how in past press conference where trump asks for Russia's help stealing emails from Hillary, he also said he would acknowledge that Russia owns the Crimea?

please feel free to offer any corrections

Obviously there should be a more rigorous procedure in place beyond a few polls, but "considering more than first principles" does not mean "ignoring first principles", eh?

just please bear in mind that "my logic" here is "government by consent"

I don't really care what you call it, it's not commonly enforced today and if it was then it will lead to an insane amount of instability, wars and genocide.

Like if it was an actual thing then Ukraine could have just engineered migration inside their country and give benefits for a bunch of people to move from Kiev to Crimea so any (legitimate) poll would fall short. It's not a real thing so they didn't do it.

I don't know all that much about the US but if there's a place called Koreatown in LA that is Korean-majority, should they be able to just declare themselves as a part of South Korea tomorrow if 50.1% of them genuinely wished so? The "government by consent" way is rigged for the major countries - US government could just step in and stop that from happening, Ukraine can't so they get ****ed over.

In the case of Sudetenland, millions of Germans got expelled from Czechoslovakia after WW2, tens of thousands died. Was a good move by Czechoslovakia since they removed all German-majority places so they made Germany lose their right to annex their territory.

It's not "enforced" because it isn't a law, it's a theory of political legitimacy. Its purpose is merely to inform one's sense of propriety wrt government action/existence.

And the theory doesn't operate in isolation; human rights still apply. If I renounce my citizenship, I don't thereby legitimize myself being tortured, and a nation (of so self-identifying individuals) cannot legitimately commit genocide to maintain the propriety of their nation-state.

Ukraine should have done exactly that.

Israel subsidizes the immigration of Jews.

50.1%, no. Around 80% though?

The real wrinkle in the theory, imo, is the intermingling of property rights.

Why would the US have an easier time effecting internal, cultural migration than the Ukraine? Wouldn't it actually be logistically more difficult for a larger nation-state?

self x-posting itt

I was being sarcastic. It's largely looked as a mistake that was motivated by xenophobic revenge rather than some sensible foreign policy decision.

I'm honestly baffled by your thinking that the Ukraine should have just migrated people from Kiev to Crimea for Putin's invasion to be illegitimate. If this "theory of political legitimacy" became widespread thinking supported by leaders and people then absolutely nothing would change as to what countries borders that are considered legitimate are but something like a billion people will be forced to leave their homes because their country needs some equilibrium placement of its citizens to rightfully hold every inch of their territory and that makes you nod and think yeah that's totally better than what the current status quo is.

again, basic human rights still apply

UDHR

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

I'm honestly surprised the residents of Chinatown in New York City haven't voted out the American government in favor of the Chinese government, they would be considered such patriotic heroes back in Beijing

They can. The concept of nation and the corollary concept of nationality were advances when the status quo was some sort of pre-democratic monarchical kingdom. Now they are antiquated anti-democratic concepts used to disenfranchise and exclude and the world would benefit if they were reconceived or abandoned.

only if you insist on a racial component to nationality

if instead you base it on a shared set of cultural and political values, it is the very essence of democracy

I mean something simpler. For example, the 10 or so percent of the population in Western Europe that pays taxes and has no representation whatsoever in the organs of governance because it lacks citizenship in whatever nation it resides. Why should democratic governance be conditioned on nationality/citizenship? (Why should it be conditioned at all?)

You'd tie an individual's representation in the public body merely to their physical presence within the body's territorial jurisdiction rather than to a formal recognition of cultural accession (gaining citizenship) or the assumption of it (birthright citizenship)?

You (unintentionally) and lenC (intentionally) have done well itt to illustrate just how problematic this pet theory of yours is in practice (if Russia annexing Crimea didn't do so already).

Why 80% and not <some number between 50% and 80%>? Seems rather arbitrary no matter where you cut it off.

And where do we define the borders? Most of the people in my hick town love Trump and Desantis and garbage of that ilk, but 100% of the population of my house and my next-door neighbor's house would rather live under Canadian rule. Why are our rights being trampled?

first, it is not my "pet theory", it is the foundation of modern/Western political philosophy

second, citing Russia's annexation begs the question, here; I invoked the theory to suggest that, in this case, Russia's annexation might actually be justified, regardless of whether you or I agree with Russia's other policies

the difference between 78% and 80% would be arbitrary, but I don't think so b/w 50% and 80%

what rights are being trampled?

the Petoria example would be a better fit here (wrt Crimea/Russia) if you successfully petitioned Canada to allow your land to become a part of their country with their full protection

if you simply secede on your own, you are returning to the "state of nature" (in the theory's parlance), and that probably won't end well for you