|
NorthernGent -> RE: Imperialism (4/14/2007 1:27:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: barnone
I think sovereignty should be conditional upon the freedom of a people.
The problem here is that the other people may disagree with your idea of freedom. Once you start setting the parameters for freedom then you're dealing in absolutes - you're right, they're wrong. This is exactly what Isaiah Berlin warned against, the idea that a people believing themselves to be virtous could dictate to another people. This is exactly what left-wing revolutions are borne out of i.e. taking over the government because the government aren't allowing the people to be free.
quote:
ORIGINAL: barnone
If every individual is the only sovereign over his own life (and I am sure we agree that that should be the case, it is the implication of the right to life)then how can one make the case that a dictatorship that does not recognize an individual's right to life (or the necessary conditions to further life: i.e. liberty) is or should be sovereign? If people are not free, what sort of sovereignty do they have over their own lives and actions?
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, and you can shout it from the rafters, but what if you're wrong? What if you are mistaken and the bloke next door has a better grasp of freedom than you?
See, I could put a very good case forward to say the people of Britain are not free, the people of the US are not free, does that give me the right to form a movement to install my regime in both countries?
This is the very basis of the French and Russian revolutions - the people must be forced to be free and the leaders must direct the people towards freedom - isn't this the same sentiment as what you're advocating?
quote:
ORIGINAL: barnone
"Sovereignty", as guaranteed by the U.N., is a mockery of that definition, since it gives recognition and thereby "sovereignty" to dictators who deny their people the very same.
The US government and CIA installed dictators in Iran, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Brazil etc who were authoritarians who killed their own people. The US turned a blind eye - RealPolitik, Henry Kissenger.
The Sandinistas overthrew their government in 1979 - you can argue the rights and wrongs, but it was the business of a sovereign nation. They were democratically elected for the next 7 years. The US government then trained the Contras who overthrew the democratically elected government and stood by as they tortured and murdered people.
The point is:
a) The US government gives false sovereignty to milita groups.
b) What gives the US government the right to say who is right and who is wrong? If you have an opinion - fine, but export it? What if you're wrong?
quote:
ORIGINAL: barnone
The implication of my thought in answer to your question is that it is perfectly reasonable to suppress a nation that is not sovereign (i.e. does not recognize the liberty of its own people) when it is in the defensive interest of a free people.
That is a very left-wing concept. Armed struggle is the road to freedom.
Robespierre: the despotism of liberty is the fight against tyranny.
Lenin: give me four years to teach the people and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
The above seems similiar to your line - violence is justified when making the people free.
Tony Blair: let us reorder this world around us, I believe that this is a fight for freedom, from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, they too are our cause.
You're prepared to dictate to a nation because you believe you know what freedom is, but what if you're wrong? Can you be certain you are right?
|
|
|
|
