A theory that denies secession rights to groups suffering no injustice but genuinely preferring self-governance privileges state integrity over democratic consent without principled justification.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Democratic consent(as used in political philosophy): The idea that government power is only legitimate when people have genuinely agreed to it, usually through voting or other forms of participation.
Principled justification(What the statement says Scotus lacks when he stops the regress at two points): A reason for believing something that is based on a clear rule or logical foundation, rather than just asserting it's true without explanation.
Secession rights(as used in political philosophy): The legal or moral right of a group of people to break away and form their own independent government, separate from the larger state they currently belong to.
State integrity(as used in political philosophy): The principle that a government should maintain its territorial unity and not break apart into separate pieces.
injustice(Locke's demonstration of the moral proposition 'Where there is no property, there is no injustice.'): A violation of a right.
self-governance(Bratman 2009b, 2009c): A condition, enabled by consistency and coherence of intention, that is of non-instrumental value and is tied to the functional role of intentions as plans.

2 topics