Anarchy, Soverignity and Rights

[Thatperson]

Think about this for a moment, Great Britain is the name of an island, not a political entity or a soverign state but an island. Great britain (along with northern ireland) is claimed soverign territory by an institution known as "The Government of the United Kingdom" Headed by Queen Eliabeth the second and administered by David cameron's coalition. This is De Facto, not De Jure. (Under the law of the "Government of the United Kingdom") it is De Jure but in reality it is De Facto. The Government claim to be the governors of the geographical area but this is just their claim, undisputed by 99.999% of the people in the territory it claims soverignity over. Another example would be the geographical entity of China. most of which is adminstered by the PRC government and a small part Governed by the ROC government. They both claims each others are as their own. De Facto the mainland is territory of PRC and taiwan by ROC. The fact that in a undisputed area such as Great Britain, 99.999%+ of the population recognise the "Government of The United Kingdom" as the owner of the geogrpahical entity. This gives the illusion that it actually is, when in fact it's not, it's just a sophisticated tribe. This then raises the issue of rights, if the Government merely claims ownership of the land mass, then people who are not part of this voulentary agreement can do what they like, although due the fact that the government De Facto controls the land mass, if you murder someone, the Government will send some of its tribe "police" to come and enforce their law. If an individual has the right to do absolutly anything including murder (which in theory they do) then the tribe/government also has the right to send some of its people (police) to enforce their own rules. Surely then people could just rebel and do what they like? sure the government have 10,000 police officers or so, but even if 1% of the population rebelled the 600,000 could overpower them. So why doesn't this happen? Because its a voulentary cooperation, we accept the right of the government to rule over the land they claim, beause it is mutually beneficial to have a rule of law. Some people will always accept soveringity of the government, so pure anarchy is impossible, is it then jsut about changing degree of soveringity? If stable nations that don't overthrow their government have this voulentary cooperation, then is this not anarchy? A voulentary cooperation, with which we give some people the role of manager? Discuss

[spockman]

The right to live as a totally free human being, eh? Without an arbitrary institution ruling your life... I get it. The right to live free. "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphillis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind... In fact, you are claiming the right to be unhappy."

[Spartiate]

This is De Facto, not De Jure. (Under the law of the "Government of the United Kingdom") it is De Jure but in reality it is De Facto. Eehhh what? De jure means "of law", in this case the laws of the United Kingdom. You can chose to ignore the laws but that doesn't stop the UK government's de jure sovereignty over Great Britain. The difference between the UK and China is that in China, the de jure situation does not match the de facto situation. In the UK, if you're part of that 0.001% that rejects the government's sovereignty (and breaks the law), the UK will be in a position to do something about it; whereas Taiwan can't really enforce anything in mainland China. If half the population were to rise up against the UK government, then maybe it would lose de facto control of Great Britain, but it would still retain de jure sovereignty. The only time things would get complicated would be during a civil war, where multiple factions exist in and claim the same territory. But in civil wars, laws and such tend to go out the window...

[Thatperson]

the UK government's de jure sovereignty over Great Britain If half the population were to rise up against the UK government, then maybe it would lose de facto control of Great Britain, but it would still retain de jure sovereignty It's only ever had De Facto control. If I were to claim soverignity over great britain, then under "thatpersons law" Great britain would be De Jure in my control.

[spockman]

It's only ever had De Facto control. If I were to claim soverignity over great britain, then under "thatpersons law" Great britain would be De Jure in my control. No, because if Great Britain never had De Jure control, (the UKs government is as stable as one can hope for,) then you certainly wouldn't have De Jure control yourself, (a much less stable and legit government.) Basically, I don't see you questioning whether the UK has De Jure over England as much as I see you questioning the whole concept of De Jure law.

[Spartiate]

It's only ever had De Facto control. If I were to claim soverignity over great britain, then under "thatpersons law" Great britain would be De Jure in my control. Then both the UK and you would be claiming Great Britain. The fact that you legally claim it doesn't change the fact that the UK does. Philosophically speaking, de jure doesn't really mean much as laws are not absolute, they are man-made. Practically speaking, laws need to come from an official source with international recognition to be accepted.