Subject:
|
Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 19:20:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
>
> > I do believe, what Bruce actually asked me was if I supported
> > Hitler killing the Jews...
>
> But that was just an extreme example of what I said. It was a starting point
> for distinguishing what you really think about the role of sovereignty in our
> war-decisions.
In my experience, extreme examples do more to mud up the argument rather than
cutting to the essence.
The key issue is regarding WW2 and the Holocaust is that nation sovereignty
wasn't an issue for either case (the war or the genocide).
Furthermore, it wasn't a question on how I'd feel about the Holocaust, but
rather an *assumption* - which is both offensive and ignorant, not to mention
against the spirit of debate.
> Do you think that a nation can act to cause harm to its own population without
> ever threatening the sovereignty of the neighbors to such a degree that invasion
> of that country -- violation of their sovereignty, is justified?
I would say that there is. However, I would point out that most large-scale
human rights abuses will threaten sovereignty of neighboring nations (refugees,
danger of spiraling out of control, foreign nationals becoming victims in the
genocide, etc) in such a way that would justify invasion.
The key to justifing an invasion is adherence to international law, and,
assuming there is not international meta-gov't (ie, UN) - a wide coalition or
alliance (think NATO's role in the Kosovo incident - not the "Coalition of the
Willing"). A metaphor could be, a group of friends intervening, rather than one
friend charging in.
> We can imagine a case in which traditional human rights abuses aren't even a
> factor. What if it turns out that rain-forest depletion becomes a risk for
> making the planet uninhabitable? Are we justified in invading Brazil (or
> Malaysia, or whatever) to protect the Earth?
That is dangerous ground to tread on. I'm not sure how I'd feel about it -
suffice to say, I'd like to see ample evidence and arguments before I'd feel it
is the right thing to do. That and a huge effort to convince
Brazilians/Malaysians to save their own forest - or to solve the problem that
Brazilians/Malaysians feel that burning the forest will solve.
> The essence of this is the question: What's so important about sovereignty?
I think about it like this: What is the opposite of sovereignty? It is the rule
of a people by someone not representative of the people (empire). Even a
dictator needs the support of his people to be successful. The dictator will at
least have a support base, and the dictator will act to benefit that support
base.
Sovereignty is the effort of a people to look out for their own interests as it
applies to themselves. History has shown that when people act in their own
interests (democracy, capitalism, etc) things tend to work out better for them.
-Lenny
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
120 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
