NationStates Jolt Archive

...what sort of state do they have in mind?

Or, what sort would you prefer to see?

Pie.

Yes I would prefer Tibet to be a Buddhist Vatican if you will. I would also like to see Jerusalem turned into a tri-religion vatican (christian, jewish, moslem), outside of the political control of israel and palestine. Is either going to happen? Almost definitely not.

Theocracies are bad, ethnic states are bad, representative democracies are good. Of course, if China somehow democratizes and doesn't oppress Tibet, I see no problem with keeping the two together; Tibet would probably do much better as part of the Chinese federation than as an independent state.

...what sort of state do they have in mind?

Or, what sort would you prefer to see?
First let's make sure Mongolia STAYS free, then we can talk about making Tibet independent again.

Yes I would prefer Tibet to be a Buddhist Vatican if you will. I would also like to see Jerusalem turned into a tri-religion vatican (christian, jewish, moslem), outside of the political control of israel and palestine. Is either going to happen? Almost definitely not.

I heard something about that Jerusalem idea before. I think it works with Andorra (between France and Spain), but that has no religion and very few historic animosities involved, of course.

Not to commandeer my own thread, but I like the idea of a Jerusalem Free City, if it could possibly work. It couldn't really be a theocratic state, per say, considering it's not particularly united religiously.

Theocracies are bad

I'm seriously, curiously asking this next question with no hostility intended: :)
Do you think Vatican City should continue being separate from Italia? If so, why would it not work for a Dalai Lama-led Tibet?

I think at the moment Tibet isn't doing so badly economically, China has invested a lot of money into it. Problem is just the lack of religious freedom and the apparent racism when it comes to who gets the jobs in all the new industries.

That being said, I still think most Tibetans would prefer their own country, but I don't really care which way they organise it.

I think that Tibet should be free like a flock of birds. By which I mean that we should staple paper-mache (fuck you and your accent-marks) wings to their arms and order them to take flight, lest we shoot them with bird-shot.

I think that Tibet should be free like a flock of birds. By which I mean that we should staple paper-mache (fuck you and your accent-marks) wings to their arms and order them to take flight, lest we shoot them with bird-shot.

Sadly, it would never pass through the international community. France would certainly veto the fucking of their accent marks.

QUERY: Fiddlebottoms, what IS your NationState?

My favorite brand of my religion deserves a home, and although the Tibetans are the only people who've been capable of pulling off a theocracy...
I voted for the ethinic nation state. Being honest with myself, their previous political model sounded a bit too authoritarian. I suspect the Dalai Lama would run things a bit differently now, though.

My favorite brand of my religion deserves a home, and although the Tibetans are the only people who've been capable of pulling off a theocracy...

I think the Israelites had something workable going on, and I'd say the Vatican has something now too (though, yeah, it's too small to count).

But interesting choice, especially considering your perspective.

I'm seriously, curiously asking this next question with no hostility intended: :)
Do you think Vatican City should continue being separate from Italia? If so, why would it not work for a Dalai Lama-led Tibet?

No hostility taken; it's a valid question.

I see no problem with the Vatican remaining independent from Italy. The chief difference between the Vatican and Tibet is size- the Vatican is a tiny city-within-a-city with a miniscule population of under 1,000, most of whom are of the same religion, and all of whom are easily able to emigrate to the rest of Italy- Rome is just outside the Vatican walls. The Vatican exists purely as a symbolic piece of temporal power to supplement the tremendous spiritual power of the Pope.

By contrast, Tibet would exist primarily as an ethnic state for the Tibetans. Tibet is a rather large area covering much of central Asia, with a population of about 2.4 million as of 2000. A population that large is guaranteed to have some religious diversity, which is rather bad under a theocratic system. The plateau of Tibet is so isolated that emmigrating would be difficult, and families have been there so long that they would be loathe to move- if the Chinese didn't chase them out, nothing will.

I guess my point is that the citizens of Vatican City are few in number and choose to live under the Pope, and can easily move away as their families have no connection to the tiny land of the Holy See (there is no Papal culture). there are rather more Tibetans, and they wouldn't have the luxury to choose to live under the Dalai Lama, nor would they be willing to leave due to ancestral connections to the land. Completely different situations

Well, it would most likely be theocratic, but that's incidental as far as I'm concerned. I'd have voted for "any type of representative democracy", but I prefer direct democracy. So, in my mind, a free Tibet would be an independent Tibet with a direct democratic system which would most likely vote itself to be theocratic.

I'd go for a representative democracy any day. The Tibetan people need their say! Which is something a theocracy and an ethnic state simply fail to do.

To be honest I feel that (if i'm wrong I'm sorry) the Tibetan people are deeply religious right? so wouldn't they want the dalai lama in charge? no need for elections if that is the case. I think that Tibet should be symbolic, however the dalai lama in charge wouldn't be bad as long as he wasn't allowed to opress his people and stop them emigrating abroad. The three religions Jerusalem is a great Idea, if you respect other peoples faiths you should be able to see reason, why should any one religion be able to control it?

Maybe a representative democracy; if they want the Dalai Lama to run things, they can choose so.:)

Theocracies are bad, ethnic states are bad, representative democracies are good. Of course, if China somehow democratizes and doesn't oppress Tibet, I see no problem with keeping the two together; Tibet would probably do much better as part of the Chinese federation than as an independent state.
I'm dubious that any of the population who aren't Buddhist monks are finding the Chinese regime any more undesirable than the medieval theocracy, really.
And they should shut up whining and accept that it's their karma to be ill treated by the Chinese, really. They've obviously done something bad in a past life that they've expiated by being tortured and chased out of the country by the Chinese. If they expect anybody else to take the bullshit they spout seriously, they should try to abide by it themselves, really.

I'm dubious that any of the population who aren't Buddhist monks are finding the Chinese regime any more undesirable than the medieval theocracy, really. They're not allowed even to sing songs in Tibetan. Also, there are other ways asides from medieval theocracy/totalitarian imperalism - you don;t have to go to extremes.
*sorry about bad typing - cold cold cold!

Free Tibet would be what the Tibetans want.

Before such a representative democratic system could be brought on, the Dalai Lama led government which is in exile at Dharamsala, India should be restored to power.

Free Tibet !

...what sort of state do they have in mind?

Or, what sort would you prefer to see?

Its none of my business, ask the Tibetans.

Whatever the Tibetians want, although can anyone really see the Dalai Lama oppressing his population?

"You arn't religious enough, you must die!"
:D

Something like Shaolin Soccer.

I voted for '' "Free Tibet" folk have many different ideas; most would be upset with whatever forms. ''
I do not disagree with their independence, but I will not live to see it (and no, not because I'm about to die... hopefully).

Tibet was a theocracy before. Never mind the generality (theocracy is something to be avoided or amended), but Tibet/Bod used to be independent, and I don't think it was a good place to be. Really.

Well I just wanted to clarify on my Jerusalem idea. My ideal Jerusalem would be one of a tri-religion Holy City. I would like to see it controlled by Islam, Christianity (I must confessed Im biased towards Catholicism) and Judaism. I would like it to be the equivalent of the Vatican, but for three religions, and completely out of the political power of Israel and Palestine. This also translates into my view for Tibet, but Buddhist. Oh, and about the Israelites doing a good job, well sure, if you consider genocide a good job...

They're not allowed even to sing songs in Tibetan. Also, there are other ways asides from medieval theocracy/totalitarian imperalism - you don;t have to go to extremes.
*sorry about bad typing - cold cold cold!
Fair enough, I just find it extraordinary that the Buddhist theocrats seem to feel that the nonsense they spout doesn't actually apply to something that happens to them. It does rather strengthen my suspicion that they always saw it as a device to justify treating the peasantry like shit rather than anything else.

The Tibetans should pick their government. My guess is that they will vote the Dalai Lama back into power. Perhaps a constitutional theocracy - an elected parliament to run foreign affairs, and the Dalai Lama to be the spiritual leader (and to run some of their domestic affairs).

The problem with making Jerusalem a free city is that it is also the cultural and political center of Israel.

Israel is NOT a theocracy. It is a parlimentary democracy that is influenced by religion. Frankly, I think the ultra-Orthodox have a little too much influence in Israel.

i was think tibet could be like china, only with more monks and dinosaurs! You cant go wrong with dinosaurs!