Commenter lawrencema notes:
If Iraq does become a shining beacon of democracy and human rights, the obvious question will be “was it worth the cost?”
This is an argument I have with a lot of libertarians, who argue the brutal repression of people outside our borders isn’t our problem. I think John Donne best explains my views on the matter:
“No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
{ 7 comments }
I have been, since 2002, and continue to be astonished by other libertarians who seem to think that freedom is an American right, not a human right. They are perfectly willing to spend trillions here on questions like, "how informed of your rights do you have to be before you can be convicted of a murder you actually committed," while they are unwilling to spend a single cent on questions like, "should you be tortured, raped, and murdered, all on videotape, because the spawn of the thug that runs your country liked the way you looked walking down the street?"
That’s one of the fundamental paradoxes of (L/l)ibertarianism, Phelps: The strength of any individual’s rights is directly proportional to the size of the group willing to defend them. That is to say, individual rights do not, for all practical purposes, exist in absence of the collective.Â
If the Iraqis only have the rights they themselves can secure through the force of arms, then by what basis does a Virginian fight for the rights of Arizonans? Shouldn’t Arizonans have only the rights they themselves can secure? By what basis do people from Nashville fight for the rights of people in Memphis? Shouldn’t Memphians have only the rights they themselves can secure? By what basis does a neighbor try to protect the rights of his neighbor. Shouldn’t that person only have the rights they themselves can secure?
If each individual had to secure his own rights, then he doesn’t really have any. He merely possesses the ability to do/have something or he doesn’t. He doesn’t "own" his car. He merely is in possession of a car until someone who can project more force than he (whether by himself or by hiring others) takes the car from him.
This is not liberty. It is anarchy: the rule of the sword, where you only have the rights the guy with the biggest sword allows you to have.
If you are to have rights, they must be protected by others outside of the group being denied them.
It’s odd too, that the nativist Libertarians believe that these rights should extend to any immigrant (legal or not) who can manage to make it across an arbitrarily drawn border, but beyond that border? Of course not!
Why such magic respect for humans who happen to be born (or even "lucky" enough to float) here, but such indifference to those on the outside?
Great points Yu-Ain.
As I have said for a while, "I cannot be free if you are not free."
I’ve got a few more questions.
 Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in the US South worth the price?
 Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and various other European nations worth the price? Of one world war? Of two?
 Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam worth the price?  OK, trick question there. We gave up before we finished the job in Vietnam.  But Japan and Korea still count.
 Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in Lebanon worth the cost?  (oops, we gave up there too)
 Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in Israel worth the cost? Â
Was the establishment and defense of human rights and democracy in the US South worth the price?
Oh come on, if the slaves had wanted freedom, they would have fought for it themselves. That they didn’t suggests they liked living in slavery. </sarcasm*>
*God, I loath myself for even being able to type such philisophical drivel. I couldn’t imagine actually believing any of that shit.
Comments on this entry are closed.