Topic: Political Compass (Read 3246 times)

What sort of application did you file against your country? What country is it?

International law deals almost-exclusively with nations.

For instance, I have filed an application against my country in front of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). But, I cannot file an application against any persons who have committed criminal offenses against me in front of that body. It is only possible to sue a state.

At the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), they only try e. g. generals.

Bodies of the United Nations (UN) act at national, ethnic, or similar and not personal levels.


International laws are contracts between nations. Any non-national military is "paramilitary" to them.

For instance, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms according to which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judges is a contract signed between all member states. You might call this court an arbitration body.

These courts are different from national courts in the sense that they apply only to states which adhere to them. For instance, the United Nations (UN) cannot apply a single United Nations resolution against Vatican City as it is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

Libertarianism is already global, but is valid only for entire states.

Obviously, by disagreeing, you accept international law. Just thought I'd throw that out there to confound you.

Semantics, my only weakness

That would be military (probably over)reaction, not action.

I agree with you, but the people invading aren't going to make that distinction, and they'll either consider you an enemy, or expect you to fight on their team; either way, you're dragged into the problem the minority created, without anyone's permission but their own.

Frankly, the only way to avoid this issue, as of today, is to not live in the country which is being invaded.  If, in the future, we begin to assimilate and lose the borders, it becomes a lot more difficult to wage huge wars as we've done in the past, as it becomes painfully clear that the two warring parties are of the same kin--that is, they're both human beings first, as opposed to being, for example, Americans first and human second, or Chinese first and human second (ignoring how incredibly expensive it would be to wage wars in a voluntary society.)  If the old adage is true, "United we stand, divided we fall," then this planet has no hope; it seems the end-game of politics, then, is either a one-world state, or no states; I'm personally rooting for the latter.

But that shift takes time, and until then, there will be people who want to kill other people for whatever silly reason, and the people being killed will have to defend themselves; a military is but an organized people with the intent or expectancy of violence.

I don't consider myself part of a "nation" in the way you use it. Self-defense is important, but so are the lines that we choose to draw. If a superpower attacks the US tomorrow, I surely won't support the US army in anything that it does -- how could I, considering history? I will defend myself and my community -- fuck this country. I just hope that someday, the US won't exist.

Except when a nation must defend itself against another nation's aggression; to be without a military is to have a big sign that says "please invade us", much the same way anti-gun legislation puts a sign on the citizen's face that says "please mug me."

All military action is unjust.

What? If you reject authority, period, then you disagree. Right? 

It doesn't make you chose between national and international authority. "Military action that defies international law" is a subset of military action in general, so if you feel military action is never justified under any circumstances, then you answer "Strongly Disagree". It's not a hard question.

How does Political Compass expect me to complete their test to determine whether I'm a authoritarian or libertarian, left or right, when the following question on the first page makes me chose between national and international authority: