Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.
"The Declaration does not say that the right to self-determiniation is conditional."
Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.
==================================
Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.
As you & others here have made clear, the Declaration qualifies; -- "That to secure these Rights, - [inalienable rights, - to life, liberty, property] - Governments are instituted among men," -----.
Seeing that only a republican form of constitutional government can 'secure' such rights, it is specious of ROL to claim that our declaration would allow states to secede to form ANY type of government that a states majority would will.
In reality, his position is clear. He disagrees with certain basic principles of both the declaration & the constitution/bill of rights.
He favors majority rule, - statism. - And refuses to admit this simple truth.
I disagree with you. Read it again. You are wanting to read the section about prudence as a requirement for self-determination. It says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the goverened as long as the people are prudent. Or even morally right.
I don't believe that the people in Iran, for instance, are morally right. They certainly don't believe in human equality. But I also believe they have the right to determine their form of government. I disagree with that form of government. But I don't think that anyone has the right to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent. Do you?
And if it would be wrong to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent, how can it be right to impose a government on the people of the South without their consent?