FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
Philo,
......well, not surprisingly, we part company here Firm. (you aren't that surprised are you?...lol).
I'm not really sure we disagree at all. I think it's more like we are looking at it from different aspects.
Essentially i don't believe that might makes right.
Neither do I. Might gives the ability for action.
i do believe that individuals and groups of individuals can act justly or injustly.
As do I.
That there is an external standard by which to judge behaviour. The relative power of those individuals or groups does not change morality.
Ahhh ... an "external standard"! What standard would that be, philo? 
If it were to be deemed that it was in the national interest of the USA to invade Mexico and enslave its population, what is to prevent that? Under the view you've posted above....nothing.
Not quite true. Is it, or does the US perceive that the slavery of the population of Mexico is in it's national interest?
People define the national interest. The US generally doesn't define institutional slavery as in it's national interest. We fought a war over that issue, actually.
This is important when we consider the thread topic. If the USA is perceived world-wide as a country that has no moral code to guide its actions other than self interest. If it believes it has the right to pursue any action at all if it considers it brings a benefit to itself, then is it really surprising that it is seen in some quarters as a rogue nation with nukes?
No nation considers the US a rogue nation with nukes. What you see and hear are nations and groups attempting to lessen the power of the US, or convince the ruling elites of the US to conform to their own desires, in order to achieve their own national interests.
Pretty cynical, I know, but there ya are.
Rule of law has been seen as the point where humans learned how to lie together. Law does not apply merely to individuals.......indeed it must apply to those larger groupings too.
Rule of law in a civil society, and international law aren't the same thing, primarily because of the lack of a supra-national authority (despite of claims of the UN and one-worlders).
International law is the law of national self-interest. Period. It's the law of power. It's the law of the jungle, really. For the last several hundred years, the US itself has been the strongest proponent of a international system made up of codified laws based on a moral basis. Prior to that, Great Britain was the most powerful proponent.
Why?
Because such a world system, made up of regularized rules and norms of behavior makes for greater predictability, and stability: conditions that most benefit a capitalistic system.
But, at the end of the day, a nation which gives up its right of survival to a set of artificial rules does not set or make international law - for very long. A powerful nation which perceives itself directly challenged in it's basic world view and position ... will revert to a more basic understanding of international power, especially if it has the ability to remake that order to be more advantageous to itself.
This is true of the US, or Canada, of Great Britain, of China, of Russia, of Boliva, Brazil, Iran, Iraq, Israel or Lichtenstein.
Countries that act outside lawful parameters are dangerous.....not just to the rest of the world, but ultimately to itself.
See my above discussion in reference to "lawful parameters".
Nations which do not operate within the parameters of self-interest and power are inherently destabilizing to any ordered system, and likely short-lived as nation-states as well.
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Obama: Taliban and al-Qaida must be stopped - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread