What to do about North Korea...?

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.

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

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want
the police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the
houses that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a price.

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

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:16:31 +0000, Jose wrote:

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want the
police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the houses
that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a
price.

You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
"Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure where this takes the discussion, however. Perhaps: don't
underestimate the population's willingness to see houses bombed as long as
(1) it is someone else's house and (2) it is supposed to make them safer.
Consider those that respond to the current administrations warrant-free
searches with "well, if you've nothing to hide...".

Then there's the ADIZ, which makes the DC area safe from law-abiding
pilots. Or the invasion of Iraq, which makes the US safe from all those
WMD-carrying terrorists that attacked the US in 2001/09.

Populations aren't all that discerning. And what does *that* mean for the
promotion of democracy laugh?

- Andrew