Sovereignty, E.G., Northern Ireland (WAS: Re: Transhumanist Declaration (New and Improved))

Alan Barksdale (
Tue, 14 Apr 98 16:31:25 CDT

I don't think this discussion is closely related to extropianism, but let me
try to turn it in that direction.

I believe that most ancestors of pro-British residents of Northern Ireland
moved there centuries ago, indeed longer ago than the arrival dates of most
ancestors of current USA citizens.

If some Choctaw were to point out to me, a fifth-generation Mississippian and
eleventh-generation Southron, that his folks were forcibly dispossessed of the
land beneath our feet and to say that jurisdiction therefore belongs to his
tribe's government, would Brian say that I should accept? Note that the
Choctaws, one of the "Five Civilized Tribes", had a well-written constitution
and a functioning government before the ethnic cleansing that opened
Mississippi to my folks.

The idea that jobs currently done by government employees should instead be
done by private agencies chosen by each individual moves from idealism to
practicality when one considers the bloodshed that results from insistence
that every large geographic area should have a single sovereign power.

I might prefer living under a modernized Choctaw government but would not
acknowledge a nationalistic assertion of the Choctaw right to rule and would
consider myself justified in resisting violently any violence employed by a
hypothetical Choctaw Republican Army.

Attempting to substitute voluntary, private arrangements for governments is
preferable to pushing for rule by one government over another. Failing that,
I favor the cantonments promoted by Loew and Kendall's _South_Africa:_The_
_Solution_. By that standard, most governmental functions would devolve to
smaller areas of Northern Ireland--counties perhaps--and cantonal plebiscites
would determine whether London or Dublin would provide the few governmental
services that hadn't been devolved.

> From: "Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin" <>
> >I see. The IRA wants Northern Ireland partitioned into two
> >sections, with one section falling under their rule (and,
> >presumably, passing to the Irish government) and another section
> >going in some other direction (presumably remaining British)
> >according to the will of those persons (presumably mostly
> >Protestants) who live there.
> >No, I am not talking about "British Forces". I am talking about
> >PEOPLE. Bartenders, farmers, housewives. Who happen to, for
> >various reasons, prefer British rule, or at least prefer *not* to
> >suffer the fate that the IRA would choose for itself.
> No you do not "see". there will be no further partioning of any
> kind, the IRA will not be the government, the current republican
> govt will control ALL of Ireland.
> The PEOPLE you refer to are descendants of those deliberately
> settled onto Irish soil by the British Government, to enforce their
> rule, not unlike the British invasion of Iceland in WW II, they are
> invaders every bit as much as the soldiers. Unlike the soldiers who
> do not belong there, they would be free to remain, but under Irish,
> not British law.
> There will be no peace until this is so.
> Brian
> Member, Extropy Institute
Governments exploit patriotism by falsely identifying themselves with the
lands that they claim to rule. A patriot will oppose a government that
oppresses his homeland. One can be an anarcho-capitalist and love one's
country, too. -- AFB

Alan F. Barksdale