[America]

A recent discussion in my political science question brought up an interesting issue still found throughout the world. Many people do not claim a place to live, and rather live in tribal migrant communities and wander. A fierce discussion soon appeared, arguing whether or not wandering persons could be settled by the state so that the state (the government, for you fellow Americans, not the state as in Illinois, etc.) can protect them, collect taxes, etc.

I personally think they should be allowed to roam within a states border, but not outside it. How about you?

[mastab]

The Social Contract isn't a contract if one side is forced into it. If those nomads don't want to be a part of a nation, it's nobody's place to stop them.

[Kenadian_2006]

They should be allowed to wander where ever they please within the state's boundaries. If their historical lands extend beyond into one or more other countries, let bilateral or multilateral treaties deal with it.

In other words, I am fairly sure this is what Mongolia does.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 13 February 2009 - 12:43 AM

[El Pilchinator]

mastab, on Feb 13 2009, 01:42 AM, said:

The Social Contract isn't a contract if one side is forced into it. If those nomads don't want to be a part of a nation, it's nobody's place to stop them.

As such, they are under no obligation of the government to be protected or receive any of the societal benefits.

So suppose someone in a country commits a crime against them. What is the proper recourse? What is the procedure if one of these nomads commits a crime against someone in the country? What happens if they want healthcare, need medicine?


Since they're not in the Social Contract, they should logically be barred from some of these things. Is that morally acceptable?

[Kenadian_2006]

El Pilchinator, on Feb 13 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

As such, they are under no obligation of the government to be protected or receive any of the societal benefits.

So suppose someone in a country commits a crime against them. What is the proper recourse? What is the procedure if one of these nomads commits a crime against someone in the country? What happens if they want healthcare, need medicine?


Since they're not in the Social Contract, they should logically be barred from some of these things. Is that morally acceptable?

If they refuse it, yes. You're under no real obligation to provide them unless humanitarian situations necessitate them. IE: Disasters, war, stuff like that.

[Mack Truck]

El Pilchinator, on Feb 13 2009, 04:49 PM, said:

As such, they are under no obligation of the government to be protected or receive any of the societal benefits.

So suppose someone in a country commits a crime against them. What is the proper recourse? What is the procedure if one of these nomads commits a crime against someone in the country? What happens if they want healthcare, need medicine?


Since they're not in the Social Contract, they should logically be barred from some of these things. Is that morally acceptable?

Of course it is. You'd be forcing them in to something that they don't need. There are some grey areas with forcing people to do things, like physically stopping an addict from using, or something along those lines, but this isn't one of them.

[mastab]

El Pilchinator, on Feb 12 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

As such, they are under no obligation of the government to be protected or receive any of the societal benefits.

So suppose someone in a country commits a crime against them. What is the proper recourse? What is the procedure if one of these nomads commits a crime against someone in the country? What happens if they want healthcare, need medicine?


Since they're not in the Social Contract, they should logically be barred from some of these things. Is that morally acceptable?

The government doesn't have a duty to protect them as citizens, the government - and everyone else - has a duty to protect them because they are human beings.

[Kenadian_2006]

mastab, on Feb 13 2009, 02:02 AM, said:

The government doesn't have a duty to protect them as citizens, the government - and everyone else - has a duty to protect them because they are human beings.

And if they want nothing to do with said government or nation? They can't be forced into it except for uncommon and extenuating situations.

[Chelabrin]

America, on Feb 13 2009, 04:40 PM, said:

A recent discussion in my political science question brought up an interesting issue still found throughout the world. Many people do not claim a place to live, and rather live in tribal migrant communities and wander. A fierce discussion soon appeared, arguing whether or not wandering persons could be settled by the state so that the state (the government, for you fellow Americans, not the state as in Illinois, etc.) can protect them, collect taxes, etc.

I personally think they should be allowed to roam within a states border, but not outside it. How about you?

Can you define "tribal migrant community" for me please? Do you mean indigenous peoples, or do you mean non-indigenous peoples such as religious cult followings, Gypsies, travelling carnival folk and the like?

[America]

Chelabrin, on Feb 13 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

Can you define "tribal migrant community" for me please? Do you mean indigenous peoples, or do you mean non-indigenous peoples such as religious cult followings, Gypsies, travelling carnival folk and the like?

As in indigenous peoples, like Mongolia deals with.

[freakwars]

They should form an independent nation. For instance, I formed an independent state that consists of the area around my feet.

[Germanic Republic]

mastab, on Feb 13 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

The Social Contract isn't a contract if one side is forced into it. If those nomads don't want to be a part of a nation, it's nobody's place to stop them.

Didn't we force the Mormons to be part of our nation (as per Manifest Destiny; sea to shining sea; blah blah blah) or am I just fuzzy on that?

[America]

Germanic Republic, on Feb 17 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

Didn't we force the Mormons to be part of our nation (as per Manifest Destiny; sea to shining sea; blah blah blah) or am I just fuzzy on that?

Now we are talking about the state using superior force to settle a people to better function,so you are right on track.

[Chelabrin]

I would suggest that if such wandering peoples are an agrarian, self-supporting society, then they be left alone to be what they are.

[Audran]

Chelabrin, on Feb 13 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

Can you define "tribal migrant community" for me please? Do you mean indigenous peoples, or do you mean non-indigenous peoples such as religious cult followings, Gypsies, travelling carnival folk and the like?

I think the best example would be the Tuaregs of North Africa. The French tried to force them to settle in one spot, it didn't go over so well.

[deSouza]

Germanic Republic, on Feb 17 2009, 01:27 AM, said:

Didn't we force the Mormons to be part of our nation (as per Manifest Destiny; sea to shining sea; blah blah blah) or am I just fuzzy on that?

I don't think imperialism is a practice modern society should... Tolerate.

[Kenadian_2006]

deSouza, on Feb 17 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

I don't think imperialism is a practice modern society should... Tolerate.

No land left to claim, it's all claimed by other nation-states. And, to my knowledge, no states are too keen on starting wars.

[mastab]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 12 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

And if they want nothing to do with said government or nation? They can't be forced into it except for uncommon and extenuating situations.

If they don't want to be helped? If they're sane then that's their right.

[Frozenrpg]

Wandering nomadically was so 5000 years ago. Don't they know cities and villages are the way to go?

[deSouza]

Kenadian_2006, on Feb 17 2009, 03:28 AM, said:

No land left to claim, it's all claimed by other nation-states. And, to my knowledge, no states are too keen on starting wars.

There's plenty of land to claim. Lots of countries with border issues, lots of countries with existence issues, Antarctica...
States are keen on starting wars, but it's just not like it was "back in the day". Public opinion has evolved a bit.
:lol: