View Single Post
Old June 19 2013, 02:09 PM   #251
Rear Admiral
stj's Avatar
Location: the real world
Re: United Earth? No Thanks.

Apparently I did not read too much into posts.

Perhaps another way of rephrasing is to remark that the repudiation of a legal and moral right to war as an instrument of policy is directly inimical to the interests and rights of individual human beings in general. There are only a tiny handful who will find war personally beneficial. How many are those whose hatred of other human subpopulations is virulent enough that they derive emotional satisfaction from violence against the other? A united Earth repudiating war serves the general interest of humanity.

A nation is not a meaningless abstraction, but there is no sense in which it must hold the rights and duties of an individual. A nation which claims the sovereign right to wage war is claiming that it has the legal and moral right to attack other people. It is not the soul of a particular people. The limitation of sovereignty, the legal and moral right to wage war, does not threaten the existence of a people nor does it somehow deprive the individuals in that nation of any freedoms. The abolition of war as a legal and moral right will deprive some populations of instruments of oppression. Unlike others I do not regard this as a bad thing.

Now, just as laws against murder do not abolish the natural right to self-defense, neither does the abolition of national sovereignty, abolish the right of a local population to self-defense. (A united Earth, by the way, has sovereignty by definition, and humanity as a whole has the natural right of self-defense. So much for the nonsense about space war.)
However, neither individuals nor purely local pluralities (or worse, minorities) possess the legal and moral right to simply declare that their actions were self-defense, and expect this declaration must have the force of law. That is to say, they are not sovereign.

The insistence that nations must possess that sovereignty is to insist that a national government must be free to act against the general interest of humanity, that a select portion of humanity must have the right to refuse to abide by the majority rule of humanity. Why would this be desirable? Again and again, it always comes down to the visceral hate for the very idea that other, lower forms of humanity should have the same human rights as "US."
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote