What to do about North Korea...?

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:53:29 +0000, Jose wrote:

If it's so bad, why are we delivering it to the rest of the world?

Fortunately, we're not - at least not deliberately. So I find myself
surprised that people still use the term "democracy" as if it either (1)
describes our system of government or (2) would be useful for other
nations.

Iraq is, in fact, a good example of a nation that would be destroyed by
democracy. Much of the trouble there recently results from Shiites - the
majority - taking actions against minority groups. Why bother? When
"democracy" is established, they can just vote that all Sunnis should have
to work for free, or move to one city, or be dead.

Of course, we've been pressuring the Iraqi government to be less than
completely democratic in this respect. And good thing that, too!

The Palestinian territories serve as a good example of democracy in
action. What should the world do if a population's majority wants to be
lead by terrorists? By religious fanatics? By nut jobs? By illiterates?
By people in the pocket of one special interest group or another?

For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights". Only
when a society protects the rights of individuals, including individuals
that are in some minority, can a democracy (or even a democratic republic)
serve a worthy goal.

If a society awards all people the right to live, then we don't have to
worry about a democracy voting killers into office. If a society awards
all people the right to freedom, then we don't have to worry about a
democracy voting for ethnic cleansing.

Sadly, we've our own religious fanatics in this country setting a poor
example. How can it hurt my marriage if a pair of guys or gals is
permitted to marry? What they do couldn't possibly hurt me. Yet rather
than show the world what "respect for rights" means, we've in fact shown
just how narrow a meaning "rights" can have, even here.

No, democracy isn't the answer - at least by itself. If we don't manage
to export a respect for the rights of our fellow humans (regardless of all
those many criteria by which we can divide ourselves), then "democracy" is
just going to put more groups like Hamas into power.

So where is this on our national agenda?

- Andrew

For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights".

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights".


Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries. Iraq
did this in 1990 and I think the invasion then was warranted. I think
we should have went after Saddam then when we had good justification,

This is the main reason I don't agree with the more recent Iraq invasion
as I don't think we had sufficient justification at that time that Iraq
was a threat to us.


Matt

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?


Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.

Does this include us?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?



Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.


Does this include us?

Sure. What is your point?

Matt

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?
Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.
Does this include us?
Sure. What is your point?

My point is that we are threatening other countries. Do those other
countries (or maybe even =other= other countries) then have a right to
deprive us of our soverignity?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt,

Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.


Uhoh. There's someone sitting in a glass house throwing stones if ever
I saw it...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Matt,


Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.



Uhoh. There's someone sitting in a glass house throwing stones if ever
I saw it...


I guess you haven't seen it. What country are you from?

Matt

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:12:36 +0000, Jose wrote:

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

I was less than clear: I was referring to rights of people. Not
corporate entities. Not national entities. Human entities.

I've no problem with artificial beings (ie. corporations and such) being
granted rights of a sort, mind you. But those are artifacts which, like
"democracy", can only be good things if done w/in the context of rights of
human people.

However, I am also aware that this perspective is simplistic. The right
to self-determination, for example, has certain complexities when people
live in groups. It would be hard, for example, for one citizen of my town
to secede from the US.

Nevertheless, I believe that respect for human rights is a necessary
condition in keeping a democracy from being nothing more than a tyranny
of the majority.

- Andrew

I was less than clear: I was referring to rights of people. Not
corporate entities. Not national entities. Human entities.

.... who have the right to form groups...

[...] However, I am also aware that this perspective is simplistic....

Yes, rights intersect and interfere with each other all the time. This
is why no rights are absolute.

Nevertheless, I believe that respect for human rights is a necessary
condition in keeping a democracy from being nothing more than a tyranny
of the majority.

I agree with you. But a belief that X is ncessary does not give us the
right or obligation to impose it. Substitute "respect for human rights"
with "respect and reverence for our Creator and Lord", or even "respect
and reverence for our Creator and Lord, Allah" and you will have a
situation where those who believe do so with even more conviction, and
(if true) even more reason. Yet we object.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.