What to do about North Korea...?

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:38:46 +0000, Jose wrote:

But a belief that X is ncessary does not give us the
right or obligation to impose it.

In fact, one conclusion is that to *impose* it is to violate it. It's
one of those "the operation was a success but the patient died" situations.

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.

Believers in those various dogmas have an advantage over people that
believe in human rights. As I wrote above, human rights cannot be
imposed. The very idea is silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

But those other dogmas *can* be imposed.

I suspect that there's a basic principle there, but I cannot prove it.

- Andrew

As I wrote above, human rights cannot be
imposed. The very idea is silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice. This is
often a small set of people and a power structure. Then one ensures
that the replacement small set of people and power structure will permit
the governed to choose freely.

Whether this is easy, hard, or next to impossible depends on many
things, including the underlying social structure and the external
politics. Whether this is desirable or not depends on which side of the
gun you sit.

Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights. I
tend towards it being none of our business, until it threatens our
survival, in which case morals take a second place. What is wrong
however is doing this not when it threatens our survival, but when it
threatens to threaten our survival. It's like prosecuting somebody
because they came "too close" to the border of a restricted area.

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

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:54:22 +0000, Jose wrote:

As I wrote above, human rights cannot be imposed. The very idea is
silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice.

That's not really "imposing". But I'm not sure what word does apply.

[...]

Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights.

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh? Of course, we've hired the police - in
that example - as a collective.

- Andrew