9/11 is over, a new world emerges

[CaptainPanic]

What I'm saying is that you can't have real democracy without freedom to think. Voting is meaningless if you do not have the information needed to make an informed vote. Or if you are not allowed to vote in the way you think best (keep in mind that the "beloved" Mubarak won his elections with over 90% of the votes).

Agreed. And I wasn't defending Mubarak's regime... I think we can agree that it was not a democracy, and there was no freedom to vote.

 

What's wrong is that it removes the freedom of a person to think for themselves, of which freedom of religion is just one aspect. Hence, almost no one gives a rat's ass that Sweden has a state church, but people get quite upset at states that don't have freedom of religion. Islamic law requires the execution of people who turn away from Islam, for example. Death to the heretics! Can you really have democracy if people can be executed for disagreeing with you? Thus I maintain that a people will be more free if religious and other freedoms are imposed on them than if they by majority vote outlaw freedom or dissent.

I think everybody will agree with you: killing people for having the wrong religious is bad, m'kay?

I will also agree that it's better to have a complete freedom of religion, and a separation of church and state.

 

But I maintain that you paint the picture so incredibly black and white. You make it sound like it's either freedom, or some Taliban-kinda lunatic government. Did it ever occur to you that there's a lot of possibilities in between that are acceptable, or am I just misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

 

In all the 47 countries in this world that have Muslim majorities - many of which have Islam as a state religion - how many people got executed? Hardly anyone. It's a nonsense argument.

 

The point I try to make is that you can have a functioning democracy, and a state religion. And you can also have no state religion, and still no democracy or freedom. And you just ignore that, and talk about the worst examples you can possibly find... and then you go: "See, told you it's bad".

[Mr Skeptic]

But I maintain that you paint the picture so incredibly black and white. You make it sound like it's either freedom, or some Taliban-kinda lunatic government. Did it ever occur to you that there's a lot of possibilities in between that are acceptable, or am I just misunderstanding the point you're trying to make?

 

In all the 47 countries in this world that have Muslim majorities - many of which have Islam as a state religion - how many people got executed? Hardly anyone. It's a nonsense argument.

 

Back in post 13, you said: "I therefore think that (even though it's very inconvenient, and might cause a readjustment of power) the democratically chosen religious governments are the preferred option." (preferred to a dictator). If you check your own list, you find that about half those Muslim countries have a secular government, despite having a muslim majority.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Current_states_with_theocratic_aspects

Although there is much debate as to which states or groups operate strictly according to Islamic Law, Sharia is the official basis for state laws in the following countries: Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Oman. In Nigeria, the constitution provides that states may elect to use Shari'a laws and courts, though non-Muslims are not required in any state to submit to Shari'a jurisdiction and adherence varies by state.

They're not happy places (though not all of them are democies).

 

The point I try to make is that you can have a functioning democracy, and a state religion. And you can also have no state religion, and still no democracy or freedom. And you just ignore that, and talk about the worst examples you can possibly find... and then you go: "See, told you it's bad".

 

Yes, that is how proof by example works. Are you certain that democratically chosen religious governments are always preferable to dictatorships? Because some of those can be quite bad, and even more so in theory.

 

Religious freedom is just one aspect of this. What I was talking about was the freedom to think, and the freedom to express yourself. Hence why I was also talking about freedom of the press, not just freedom of religion. It is just that to obey Islamic law as you would expect an Islamic government to do, part of that law is to suppress other religions. Of course there is also the possibility that this gets ignored in practice.

 

Perhaps this list better describes what I'm talking about here:

http://www.cobourgatheist.com/assets/downloads/voice-accountability.pdf

 

Consider Myanmar, rank 0 for "Basic freedoms, human rights abuses, free press, fair elections". Myanmar is, in theory, a Presidential Republic. North Korea also ranks 0, and is a single-party republic. Turkmenistan, with rank 1, is a Presidential Republic. Uzbekistan, rank 2, is a Presidential Republic. In fact, my guess is that pretty much all of the ones on the bottom of the list are some sort of republic or another, at least legally if not in practice. A democracy without freedom is indistinguishable from a dictatorship.

[lemur]

Nope. Theft is a secular law that is also enshrined in most religions. But you can tell it is secular because there is no god.

"Don't steal" -- secular.

"Don't steal from the house of God" -- religious.

"Don't steal or god will punish you" -- religious.

"Don't steal or the government will punish you" -- secular.

 

Anything not involving god is secular by definition.

Not really. Theism and secularism are just different ways of framing the same ideas in many cases. In a theist frame, stealing is a sin because humans are replicants of God (created in His image) and should therefore respect each other and each other's property. Secularism has removed the idea of God from morality by framing it in terms of secularized rationality, but that rationality is still rooted in a religious premise that goodness is better than evil. E.g. why shouldn't secular rationality completely part with religious ideas and proclaim theft a natural right to anyone who can get away with it? Isn't this what communism does by abolishing private property?

[Marat]

Lemur: There is always a tension between ethics and law, and that is especially acute in the case of international law, which is classically based on the respect for the sovereignty of each state as an equal with every other state. The comity among nations in international law requires Germany to accept that domestically some states of the U.S. allow lethal force to be used to prevent crimes in cases where German law would not allow lethal force to be used. That is what it means to accept that other countries exist and have domestic sovereignty allowing them to decide on the laws which apply to their own populations.

 

Now from this international law perspective, how can the U.S. and other countries declare that Libya's use of lethal force to suppress a domestic insurrection somehow merits international sanctions, military invasion, or charging the domestic authorities in Libya with crimes before an international court? I can't think of any nation which does not claim for itself the very same right to use lethal force to suppress an insurrection whic Libya is now exercising. The U.S. applied the same irrational argument against Saddam for 'daring to use poison gas against his own people' when he put down the Kurdish uprising after the First Gulf War. Again I would ask, how was Saddam's use of lethal force against the uprising Kurds any different from Lincoln's use of lethal force against the uprising Southern states in the Civil War?

[John Cuthber]

"Secularism has removed the idea of God from morality by framing it in terms of secularized rationality, but that rationality is still rooted in a religious premise that goodness is better than evil."

 

No. The rational basis for most morality is "what would happen if everybody did that?"

No need for any religious idea at all.

[lemur]

Lemur: There is always a tension between ethics and law, and that is especially acute in the case of international law, which is classically based on the respect for the sovereignty of each state as an equal with every other state. The comity among nations in international law requires Germany to accept that domestically some states of the U.S. allow lethal force to be used to prevent crimes in cases where German law would not allow lethal force to be used. That is what it means to accept that other countries exist and have domestic sovereignty allowing them to decide on the laws which apply to their own populations.

I understand that many people strongly feel that national sovereignty is practically a law of nature, but why should it be? Isn't it just something that starting getting institutionalized around the time of the treaty of Westminster? Is there any real basis for recognizing territorial legitimacy except power in whatever form?

 

Now from this international law perspective, how can the U.S. and other countries declare that Libya's use of lethal force to suppress a domestic insurrection somehow merits international sanctions, military invasion, or charging the domestic authorities in Libya with crimes before an international court? I can't think of any nation which does not claim for itself the very same right to use lethal force to suppress an insurrection whic Libya is now exercising. The U.S. applied the same irrational argument against Saddam for 'daring to use poison gas against his own people' when he put down the Kurdish uprising after the First Gulf War. Again I would ask, how was Saddam's use of lethal force against the uprising Kurds any different from Lincoln's use of lethal force against the uprising Southern states in the Civil War?

There is no issue of equality. You seem to assume that any sovereign has to respect the right of other sovereigns to exercise the same kinds and levels of force because sovereigns should receive equal respect. Whether I agree or disagree, what objective basis is their for claiming/assuming this? Isn't equality just as culturally relative as anything else, if you believe in cultural relativism? If I were to proclaim an ethic for intervention in any use of lethal force, it would be on the basis that the force being used was excessive beyond what was required to achieve the intended goal OR that the intended goal was not valid in my perspective.

 

As for your interest in the US civil war, why don't you read up on the interactions that preceded the initiation of military violence. In the book I read, Lincoln was actually asked by his opponents when he would attack them and he responded that he had no reason to attack because they were not enemies and that they would have to initiate some aggression if they wanted to go to war. Supposedly this is what led to the military attacks that initiated the war, but technically these attacks were friendly-fire 'terrorism' rather than an act of war. I think the point is that no one should have fired on anyone except in self-defense. Lincoln should have been able to issue the emancipation proclamation without militant resistance, no? . . . except that for people who viewed slaves as legitimate property, it would have been a form of taxation without representation (but that could be a whole other can of worms).

Edited February 28, 2011 by lemur

[Mr Skeptic]

About national sovereignty... it is a necessary component of diplomacy. It means one country formally recognizes another country as a sovereign nation in charge of itself, and the leaders as the rightful leaders of that country. However, this is not automatic. Who dares recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan? China claims them as their own, and recognizing the sovereignty of Taiwan means that you deny China said sovereignty over that land -- which could probably be considered an act of war. Is Palestine sovereign? I'm pretty sure we in the US don't recognize the sovereignty of North Korea. Some countries are not recognized as sovereign by others and this creates great diplomatic tension. It is a very big deal recognizing sovereignty, or not, and doing so means you accept their rule even if you don't like all their laws -- and refusing to accept their sovereignty means you reject their right to rule.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

 

We in the US cannot without being hypocrites simply accept when peoples of other nations are repressed by their government. The least we can do is scold them.

[lemur]

About national sovereignty... it is a necessary component of diplomacy. It means one country formally recognizes another country as a sovereign nation in charge of itself, and the leaders as the rightful leaders of that country. However, this is not automatic. Who dares recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan? China claims them as their own, and recognizing the sovereignty of Taiwan means that you deny China said sovereignty over that land -- which could probably be considered an act of war. Is Palestine sovereign? I'm pretty sure we in the US don't recognize the sovereignty of North Korea. Some countries are not recognized as sovereign by others and this creates great diplomatic tension. It is a very big deal recognizing sovereignty, or not, and doing so means you accept their rule even if you don't like all their laws -- and refusing to accept their sovereignty means you reject their right to rule.

 

 

 

We in the US cannot without being hypocrites simply accept when peoples of other nations are repressed by their government. The least we can do is scold them.

I don't really see any difference between calling someone a subject of a sovereign and calling them a slave of an owner. In one case, the individual 'belongs' to the 'nation,' while in the other, collective ownership is replaced with direct ownership of one individual by another. Either way, claiming that some other national (or other) authority doesn't have any power over someone because they're not "your subject" is like saying that I can't discipline or protect your children because they're not mine. This logic works fine to the extent that people accept the legal-governing authority of 'their sovereign protector/owner' but it becomes problematic, imo, in situations where the subject(s) in question don't have any interest in submitting to the authority of 'their sovereign.' Ultimately this comes down to the issue of whether people should be free to choose their nation of citizenship or whether it should be assigned to them on the basis of birthright or some other criteria. What's more, why should people have to forego one national citizenship in order to claim another? Why can't people simply acknowledge feelings of belonging in multiple nations?

[CaptainPanic]

Back in post 13, you said: "I therefore think that (even though it's very inconvenient, and might cause a readjustment of power) the democratically chosen religious governments are the preferred option." (preferred to a dictator). If you check your own list, you find that about half those Muslim countries have a secular government, despite having a muslim majority.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Current_states_with_theocratic_aspects

 

They're not happy places (though not all of them are democies).

 

The only thing I mean to say is that in the countries that went through a revolution lately (Egypt and Tunesia), I don't particularly care if they get a religious leader... as long as the foundation of the government is democratic (and remains fully democratic also after the 1st election).

 

For example, the Queen of England is also the head of the Church of England. That seems to work. It's an example of how religion and a democracy can exist side by side without problems.

 

The only thing I want right now is to give the people in Egypt and Tunesia a fair chance. If they like to get a religious head of state, then so be it. As long as they get themselves a proper democracy as well.

If we are going to oppose those countries before they even completed their revolution, then we actually increase the chances of the fundamentalists. And it's that where I see the real danger... there's no problem in religion, no matter which religion) but there is certainly a problem with the extremist fundamentalist approach to religion.

Edited February 28, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Mr Skeptic]

Oh, if you just meant a religious head of state, then that would be no problem at all. We've had one since the foundation of our nation.

[lemur]

The only thing I want right now is to give the people in Egypt and Tunesia a fair chance. If they like to get a religious head of state, then so be it. As long as they get themselves a proper democracy as well.

If we are going to oppose those countries before they even completed their revolution, then we actually increase the chances of the fundamentalists. And it's that where I see the real danger... there's no problem in religion, no matter which religion) but there is certainly a problem with the extremist fundamentalist approach to religion.

You're assuming a politically uniform "they." The concern people would have with religious governance is that religious/cultural minorities would get oppressed by religion-motivated laws. For example, people who are for allowing sexual freedoms like birth-control, abortion, divorce, pre-marital/extra-marital sex, etc. want those freedom protected AGAINST religious/government interference and would probably prefer that the government would actively protect and support sexual diversity (though the question is whether support isn't also linked to control). This could cause political conflict considering that for many religious people, the whole point of political power/governance is to attempt to legislate morality and ethics in a way that essentially saves people from themselves (and others), in their view.

 

The big question these days seems to be what to do with sexual diversity, including that between religious conservatism and secular naturalism. Should these conflicting cultures be partitioned or should people be allowed to engage sexual differences and attempt to intervene? You can think of such interventions in both directions: e.g. sexually liberated people offering asylum to refugees from sexually repressive social situations OR sexual conservatives attempting to resist culture that sexualizes people through media and other forms of sexuality-promotion.

 

 

[Marat]

If you accept the contract theory of the origin of the state as an authoritative unit to impose rules on its population by force, then the state is generated by an implicit contract made by the sovereign people to bind themselves by certain rules. But in the international law context, it is assumed that the 'people' over whom the law ranges are states rather than persons, since states antedate international law and its binding force on them is generated only by their agreement to be bound by international norms. Thus although the International Human Rights Charter of the UN specified free access to healthcare as a basic human right, the US signed that treaty only with a 'reservation' exempting itself from that provision. State sovereignty has precedence over the rules of international law, so states are bound only if they agree to be bound.

 

Now there are reformist movements in development which seek to give populations some force against state sovereignty in international law, such as the newly-asserted right of states to intervene in foreign countries to prevent genocide, but these provisions are still just nascent and state sovereignty tends to persist as the ultimate value of international law, just as human autonomy is a primary value in the domestic law of many countries.

[CaptainPanic]

You're assuming a politically uniform "they."

I assume that a large majority wants a democracy. Yes, indeed.

I do not think that they will all vote for the same party once they got their democracy... in fact, I think that a multi-party system is the healthiest form of democracy... so I hope they will be as divided as possible. But actually, I have no idea of the political landscape in Arab countries. It's probably still developing.

 

The concern people would have with religious governance is that religious/cultural minorities would get oppressed by religion-motivated laws. For example, people who are for allowing sexual freedoms like birth-control, abortion, divorce, pre-marital/extra-marital sex, etc. want those freedom protected AGAINST religious/government interference and would probably prefer that the government would actively protect and support sexual diversity (though the question is whether support isn't also linked to control). This could cause political conflict considering that for many religious people, the whole point of political power/governance is to attempt to legislate morality and ethics in a way that essentially saves people from themselves (and others), in their view.

 

The US seems to discuss exactly these topics, yet that is not a religious government (although some parts of the republicans are, perhaps).

 

Anyway, I really believe that if a majority of a population wants to outlaw these things based on the rules of some religious book, then it's up to a democracy to deliver the laws to outlaw such things. I personally would dislike that very much, but you can't always get what you want in a democracy.

 

If it is a very fundamental right, then a constitution should be there to keep that safe. It usually requires a larger majority (2/3rd or something) to change a constitution. Some democracies even bring up such a vote twice, with an election in between. That's all meant to prevent sudden changes.

If, despite all that, a democracy still pushes towards a religious law, then so be it.

The big question these days seems to be what to do with sexual diversity, including that between religious conservatism and secular naturalism. Should these conflicting cultures be partitioned or should people be allowed to engage sexual differences and attempt to intervene? You can think of such interventions in both directions: e.g. sexually liberated people offering asylum to refugees from sexually repressive social situations OR sexual conservatives attempting to resist culture that sexualizes people through media and other forms of sexuality-promotion.

I think that democracy should simply let the majority (attempt to) make the rules, and the minority gets to be the opposition. A proper democray also has many checks and double-checks, and an opposition should have some power.

 

I know that it really sucks if you're part of the minority, and it's an important issue for you... but that's democracy for you.

Edited March 1, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[lemur]

If you accept the contract theory of the origin of the state as an authoritative unit to impose rules on its population by force, then the state is generated by an implicit contract made by the sovereign people to bind themselves by certain rules.

Why would anyone accept authority to impose force on them except out of fear for threat of force? On the other hand, why would anyone respect anyone's right not to have force imposed on them except on the basis of their own authority?

 

 

But in the international law context, it is assumed that the 'people' over whom the law ranges are states rather than persons, since states antedate international law and its binding force on them is generated only by their agreement to be bound by international norms.

There seems to be a lot of unchecked assumptions involved with this. It sounds like consent of the governed is assumed in the modus operandi of recognizing state sovereignty as automatically supercedent of any "sub-state" authority. I.e. it sounds like you're saying that international law is basically serving as an instrument for statist oppression/authoritarianism.

 

Thus although the International Human Rights Charter of the UN specified free access to healthcare as a basic human right, the US signed that treaty only with a 'reservation' exempting itself from that provision. State sovereignty has precedence over the rules of international law, so states are bound only if they agree to be bound.

That is basically the power game that everyone everywhere is dealing with. Consent of the governed is a prerequisite for authority, yet consent is solicited/manipulated and otherwise manufactured in many ways that are less that fully democratic. I'm afraid healthcare and basic human rights are one of the instruments used to solicit consent to authoritarian domination. I.e. people (freely) trade their freedom for health when someone offers them the opportunity.

 

Now there are reformist movements in development which seek to give populations some force against state sovereignty in international law, such as the newly-asserted right of states to intervene in foreign countries to prevent genocide, but these provisions are still just nascent and state sovereignty tends to persist as the ultimate value of international law, just as human autonomy is a primary value in the domestic law of many countries.

It's funny that you draw a parallel between state autonomy and individual autonomy since these are basically fundamentally contradictory. State/group/collective power means that individuals are subjugated to super-individual authority. I.e. they're supposed to give up part or all their power to external authority. Describing statism as "individual states rights" thus sounds like a propagandistic way of appealing to the idea of individual freedom in order to promote the use of social power to trump individual authority. The question is what do people really want, individual freedom to self-govern or social power to control others?

 

I assume that a large majority wants a democracy. Yes, indeed.

I do not think that they will all vote for the same party once they got their democracy... in fact, I think that a multi-party system is the healthiest form of democracy... so I hope they will be as divided as possible. But actually, I have no idea of the political landscape in Arab countries. It's probably still developing.

But with democracy comes putting your prerogative on the table for critical discussion. Many people want democracy because they expect it will produce material prosperity or because they think it will increase their freedom to act unilaterally in various ways, but once they find out that democracy involves responsibility and political negotiations, they turn out to prefer some form of autocracy that gives them what they want without having to validate it. This is why many people globally who have access to democracy like the idea of a benevolent dictator because they are frustrated with not being able to achieve their goals democratically. Generally, I think there is a correlation between strength of desire/will and frustration with democracy. This is why it is so popular to use capitalism as a means of authoritarian domination for whoever has money to spend. It gives people a way to stop having to negotiate and just pay someone to do what they want without them having to reason about it. This is an abuse of capitalism, though, imo.

 

The US seems to discuss exactly these topics, yet that is not a religious government (although some parts of the republicans are, perhaps).

I disagree. I think the core values of democracy and freedom are derived from Christian religion. I think you could have a satanist-derived constitution, for example, that would promote deceit, manipulation, and power by force as well as the promotion of destruction and mayhem. I think you're overlooking the fact that it was people with strong Christian values who designed US ideologies of governance.

 

Anyway, I really believe that if a majority of a population wants to outlaw these things based on the rules of some religious book, then it's up to a democracy to deliver the laws to outlaw such things. I personally would dislike that very much, but you can't always get what you want in a democracy.

Yes, a good example is the many "blue laws" that were overturned that prevented businesses from being open on sundays or at night, etc. The problem is that even if you favor closing businesses on sunday and at night, that doesn't mean you won't have to work those shifts in order to have a job. So once democracy overturns a religious-based law, religious people get subject to the structural consequences despite disagreement.

 

I think that democracy should simply let the majority (attempt to) make the rules, and the minority gets to be the opposition. A proper democray also has many checks and double-checks, and an opposition should have some power.

Anyone can propose anything and anyone can and should apprehend it critically but constructively. If people would do this, majority and minority would be irrelevant concepts. They only come into play as a check against anti-constructive discourse where people start using group solidarity to resist critical reason. In that case, a group can be checked as a minority by the majority or if it grows to a majority, it can be checked according to individual and/or minority rights. Ultimately the point is to balance various forms of power so that no one gets oppressed/dominated.

 

I know that it really sucks if you're part of the minority, and it's an important issue for you... but that's democracy for you.

So many people get confused between democracy and majoritarian fascism. National socialism was majoritarianism without freedom for minoritarian opposition. It's still authoritarian, it's just majoritarianism becomes the justification for unilateral power. The reason you hear so many people insist that democracy is majoritarian domination (and note that it is insistence instead of making a case for it) is because this is the most convenient facade for authoritarianism where democracy is an explicit value. Ultimately, however, the point of democracy is to support checking and balancing between multiple powers that undermines unilateral authoritarianism by whatever justification. Power has to be exercised by reasonable consent with constructively critical free cooperation among individuals.

 

 

[Marat]

Interms of international law as it is now constituted, the norms of international law are generated by the customary practices of states in their interaction with each other, so the norms themselves presuppose the existence of autonomous, equal states, rather than states owing their right to exist to their fulfilment of international norms. If states did owe their right to exist to their fulfilment of international norms, ultimately we would have a single world government, since the supreme norms would rule rather than the local, cultural idiosyncracies of each people. I'm not beginning here with the view that it is a good idea that international law assumes that all states are equal and autonomous, but I am just stating that that is how international law operates.

 

Now consider the case of Lybia. After it gave up its nuclear program and started cooperating with the West some years ago, the international community once again gave it full diplomatic recognition and many Western leaders, such as Prime Minister Martin of Canada, went to Lybia to visit, congratulate, and shake hands with Gaddhafy. So we have to assume from this that the major countries of the West recognized Lybia's right to exist as a state in control of its own affairs, despite its obvious failure to live up to Western standards in its internal government.

 

So when the recent rebellion broke out, a state recognized by the West as legitimate applied lethal force to suppress a revolt of some members of its population against the legitimately constituted national authorities. I have not checked the Libyan Criminal Code, but I am sure Libya like every nation authorizes the state to use lethal force to suppress an open rebellion by any group of citizens who seek the violent overthrow of the government. In Britain this would qualify as treason, which is a capital offence.

 

But now for the legally paradoxical part. For some reason all the Western states now assume that they have a right to use force to attack and destroy the legitimate state power of a state already recognized by the West as legitimate when that state seeks to defend itself against an existential threat from rebels who seek to overthrow the state by force. What justifies the military intervention that the West is now planning? Nothing has changed about the domestically evil character of the Libyan regime from the time when the Western leaders were wining and dining Gaddhafy and restoring normal diplomatic relations and trade ties with him. So how does he suddenly not only lose his right to exist as the head of state, but even deserve to suffer the Western military powers joining with the rebels against his own government, when the West just recognized that government as legitimate in terms of international law? How does the fact that a legitimate government is defending itself against an illegal attack put its right to exist into question?

[lemur]

Interms of international law as it is now constituted, the norms of international law are generated by the customary practices of states in their interaction with each other, so the norms themselves presuppose the existence of autonomous, equal states, rather than states owing their right to exist to their fulfilment of international norms. If states did owe their right to exist to their fulfilment of international norms, ultimately we would have a single world government, since the supreme norms would rule rather than the local, cultural idiosyncracies of each people. I'm not beginning here with the view that it is a good idea that international law assumes that all states are equal and autonomous, but I am just stating that that is how international law operates.

Here's why "local, cultural idiosyncrasies of each people" are not a basis for national independence/statehood: Cultural differentiation occurs through cultural contact. So no culture is attributed to an individual or group until there is some "Other" created internally/externally to use as a contrast in describing and defining culture as structured and "one's own" or "other/different." What's more is that the moment such cultural contact occurs to allow the construction of difference/otherness to occur, this in itself already constitutes a merging (a moment of fertilization through intercourse if you will) between the two cultures. Thus no two cultures can ever really exist separately from the moment they are known in each others terms, and this fact renders them both hybrids colonized by contact with "the Other."

 

Cultural homogeneity, on the other hand, is constituted through contrast with difference but prior to that moment, no such homogeneity exists because different individuals or even different moments of the same individual's life are regarded as cultural difference. The transition from childhood to adulthood, for example, is ritualized as a cultural shift and a corresponding change in identity, status, roles, etc. So the fact that culture is always defined and identified dialectically prevents it from ever being self-originating, at least in the sense of identification and territorial-attribution.

 

International law can be viewed as a culture of its own (or part of some other specific culture) and thus its assumptions of equality and autonomy should be treated as culturally relative as culture can be relative, no?

 

But now for the legally paradoxical part. For some reason all the Western states now assume that they have a right to use force to attack and destroy the legitimate state power of a state already recognized by the West as legitimate when that state seeks to defend itself against an existential threat from rebels who seek to overthrow the state by force. What justifies the military intervention that the West is now planning? Nothing has changed about the domestically evil character of the Libyan regime from the time when the Western leaders were wining and dining Gaddhafy and restoring normal diplomatic relations and trade ties with him. So how does he suddenly not only lose his right to exist as the head of state, but even deserve to suffer the Western military powers joining with the rebels against his own government, when the West just recognized that government as legitimate in terms of international law? How does the fact that a legitimate government is defending itself against an illegal attack put its right to exist into question?

They could be protecting him from mob violence (after all it is easier to evacuate an individual and prevent him from causing trouble than it is to evacuate thousands of refugees and ensure that none are spies, saboteurs, terrorists, etc. Maybe they aren't removing him in solidarity with his opponents as much as they are catering to popular will in order to install a representative government that will allow popular ideologies to critique each other instead of unifying against repressive authority. These are some constructive possibilities. There are also cynical ones to speculate about but those conjure up images of oppressive conspiracies, covert elite exploitation, and cooperative multiple dictatorships and puppet dictatorships; but I don't feel like worrying about these since even if they were true, they would never survive to the point of being legitimately recognized as valid. Even the claims of corruption that are cited as reason for the current popular uprisings sound like ungrounded accusations on the part of people who are simply fed up with their economic situation. The accusations could be completely true, but politics still always has a way of countering with just enough uncertainty to render provocative claims suspect just by virtue of being provocative.

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

I have not checked the Libyan Criminal Code, but I am sure Libya like every nation authorizes the state to use lethal force to suppress an open rebellion by any group of citizens who seek the violent overthrow of the government.

 

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

 

Nothing has changed about the domestically evil character of the Libyan regime from the time when the Western leaders were wining and dining Gaddhafy and restoring normal diplomatic relations and trade ties with him.

 

There's a big difference between having a law on the books and actually using it.

[dragonstar57]

We in the US cannot without being hypocrites simply accept when peoples of other nations are repressed by their government. The least we can do is scold them.

no democracy can do any less than publicly say that they do not agree what they are doing

But now for the legally paradoxical part. For some reason all the Western states now assume that they have a right to use force to attack and destroy the legitimate state power of a state already recognized by the West as legitimate when that state seeks to defend itself against an existential threat from rebels who seek to overthrow the state by force. What justifies the military intervention that the West is now planning?

while i knew that there are factions that believe the west should intervene I was not aware of a impending offensive

 

Perhaps this list better describes what I'm talking about here:

http://www.cobourgatheist.com/assets/downloads/voice-accountability.pdf

what is that score based on?

Right, my point being that the government doesn't tolerate dissent from religious values when those values have been institutionalized as secular.

the laws are just logical are you saying that a law that says not to kill people is religious and should be struck down? you know atheists don't have to disagree with theists on everything!

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

these are beliefs though founded and rooted in religion are the foundation of American beliefs,

these are the assumptions that you will see in most any debate in the is and these are beliefs that even those who reject the idea of a creator still believe to be true

[lemur]

no democracy can do any less than publicly say that they do not agree what they are doing

Do you mean that democracy can't use force by definition of it being discursive? I think there's a difference between force used for liberation or authoritarian purposes. You can use force to break up a fight without silencing and intimidating the participants into submission or you can use it to do so and thus achieve authoritarian order.

 

what is that score based on?

the laws are just logical are you saying that a law that says not to kill people is religious and should be struck down? you know atheists don't have to disagree with theists on everything!

Of course not. My point was that people assume western democracies aren't religion-based when in many ways they are. Secularism can often distract from the religious roots of laws in values that preceded their secular institutionalization. Stealing was an easy example because it's one of the ten commandments yet many people think of property rights as a natural secular value. Communism abolishes property rights according to a moral value of mandatory sharing. A satanic regime could promote stealing and killing as a means of promoting survival of the fittest, i.e. whoever can steal and kill the most without themselves losing too much property or getting killed wins and is better suited to having more children (who could eventually kill them and steal their property, for example). The fact that neither of these values have been adopted by western "secular" regimes suggests that they are basically faithful to certain religious values. So why shouldn't a secular Islamic regime have similarly secularized versions of Islamic religious values?

 

 

[Marat]

Apply this reasoning to the context of the current international response to Libya. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN affirmed that everyone has a right to healthcare. The US signed that document only with a reservation letting it out of the healthcare provision. In Canada today, the provision of healthcare to all people without user fees is shown in poll after poll to be the major reason why people respect their country. In addition to this, most of the developed countries of the world provide free healthcare to their people according to need rather than according to ability to pay. In contrast, a survey a few years ago showed that the US murders 40,000 of its own citizens a year by refusing to institute a system of public healthcare, since this is the number of additional deaths which occur in the US each year as a result of sick people's inability to afford healthcare costs.

 

So why shouldn't the rest of the developed world declare war on the US for its domestic immorality, which demonstrably murders more of its own citizens per year than Colonel Gaddhafy has done in the last year as the result of his perfectly legal domestic police action in opposing the violent overthrow of the state by a group of rebels? The answer is that international law is based on the principle of mutual respect of all nations for the equal sovereignty of other nations, which means that their own domestic actions in response to crimes against their legally constituted authorities occurring in the form of sedition, open rebellion, or treason can be opposed and punished with all necessary force. Just as America's international law right to continue murdering its own citizens by refusing to provide a public healthcare system is irrelevant to its right to exist and claim respect for its domestic law and the integrity of its international borders by other nations, so too Libya's right to exist cannot be made a function of whether other states like what it is doing domestically. If we had states constantly going to war with each other as soon as they disagreed with each other's domestic policies, we would have a state of permanent world war ending in a single world government, which international law does not require.

 

It is also interesting to ask at what point does Libya lose sufficient legitimacy to become a fair target for international sanctions and a contemplated military intervention. A month ago, when the Gaddhafy regime was every bit as evil as it is today, Libya was welcomed in the diplomatic world and feted by Presidents and Prime Ministers from many Western countries. But now, because there are some rebellious gangs in Libya, it magically becomes an outlaw state and all the world leaders who were shaking Gaddhafy's hand yesterday are demanding he step down today. How does this make any sense? How many people have to revolt for this change from legitimacy to illegitimacy to occur? What if there were only 12 drunks stumbling around Benghazi throwing rocks at a government building? Would that be enough of an excuse to demand Gaddhafy's resignation and begin sending fleets of warships in to threaten or attack him? Where do you draw the line where the tipping point comes between fawning all over Gaddhafy, meeting with him in Tripoli, shaking his hand, smiling next to him for group photos, setting up trade treaties and business deals (as Prime Minister Martin of Canada did just a few years ago) and sending fleets of warships to destroy him and his 'illegitimate' government?

 

I don't know which is more colossally stupid, the sudden demand that yesterday's friend and ally step down because some mobs are illegally rebelling against the legitimately constituted authority of the sovereign state of Libya, or the fact that no one seems to notice how ridiculous the demand is in terms of international law!

[Mr Skeptic]

Just to make things interesting, has anyone heard of Resource Curse? It seems lots of oil-rich countries like Libya suffer from that.

 

 

In contrast, a survey a few years ago showed that the US murders 40,000 of its own citizens a year by refusing to institute a system of public healthcare, since this is the number of additional deaths which occur in the US each year as a result of sick people's inability to afford healthcare costs.

 

When you lie you can say anything, even that very horrible made up stories things are true. When it is obvious that you are lying, all that does is weaken your argument. Equating perfectly legal apathy to illegal murder is stupid and annoying, and whenever anyone does so I feel the need to slap some sense into them.

 

Where do you draw the line where the tipping point comes between fawning all over Gaddafy, meeting with him in Tripoli, shaking his hand, smiling next to him for group photos, setting up trade treaties and business deals (as Prime Minister Martin of Canada did just a few years ago) and sending fleets of warships to destroy him and his 'illegitimate' government?

 

Probably at the point where his people reject him as ruler and request our help to fight off this insurrection (which Gaddafi forces would be once no longer the legitimate government). Note that multiple cities have defected and no longer consider Gaddafi their leader, as have multiple government officials and military leaders. Gaddafi has had to hire foreign mercenaries to suppress the Libyan people. Why your presumption that Gaddafi is still the legitimate leader?

 

Note that many of the people do not want our military assistance, especially not in the form of troops on the ground. I think it is important as a matter of national pride, and also as an example to future leaders and current leaders elsewhere, that the people throw off their rejected leader on their own when they chose to do so. However, I think the offer to provide military assistance is probably appreciated and perhaps also of significant value.

 

I don't know which is more colossally stupid, the sudden demand that yesterday's friend and ally step down because some mobs are illegally rebelling against the legitimately constituted authority of the sovereign state of Libya, or the fact that no one seems to notice how ridiculous the demand is in terms of international law!

 

Why is it ridiculous that a government is considered to derive its right to govern from the consent of the people? And why is it ridiculous for other nations to assist a fellow nation Libya to fight off an insurrection by illegitimate ex-leader Gaddafi?

[dragonstar57]

the US murders 40,000 of its own citizens a year by refusing to institute a system of public healthcare, since this is the number of additional deaths which occur in the US each year as a result of sick people's inability to afford healthcare costs.

So why shouldn't the rest of the developed world declare war on the US for its domestic immorality

the American people are more than capable of electing leaders that will enact health care reform

(i have great hope for obamacare)

[Marat]

Sceptic: The data I cited regarding the number of American deaths caused by the lack of a public health care system can be read online at A. Wilper, et al, "Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, pp. 2289-2295 (December, 2009). The number of excess deaths caused in America annually by its deliberate political decision not to have a health care system without user fees as most of the rest of the developed world has is 45,000. Distinctions between passive and active causes tend to be purely Jesuitical. The US knows full well that these deaths arise from the lack of a public health care system; it has perfect power to correct that problem; yet it chooses not to. This is just the same as watching an infant drown in shallow water: in a common law jurisdiction you might be able to argue that you don't have a legal duty to rescue strangers, but in most civil law jurisdictions you would be criminally liable for doing nothing.

 

No election has been held in Libya since the revolt broke out, so no country has any way of knowing whether the majority support the existing government or not. Tripoli and the Western half of the country which is in Gadaffy's control has the majority of the population, and I doubt he is maintaining control by holding everyone at gunpoint. The reason the West is in revolt and the East is not has a lot to do with tribal loyalties, not concerns over such Western interests as human rights and democracy.

 

Opinion polls in various Western democracies often show that the leader has lost so much popular support that only 20% or 30% of the country approves of him. Would that justify the rest of the world invading that country to depose him because he had lost the support of the majority? The fact is that under international law the general rule in the modern world is that it is states that are recognized as sovereign and legitimate, not particular governments. Should the US have been invaded after Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore? Should other nations have frozen US foreign assets, opened a war crimes commission against the US government, and begun invasion plans against the US when the Natives rebelled against Federal authority at the Battle of Wounded Knee and were suppressed by force? Do the numbers of rebels suppressed by force count? If so, where can we draw the line between enough and too many?

 

When nations recognize each other's sovereignty, they recognize the right of each nation to control its own domestic laws, form of choice of political leaders, and to enforce its own domestic criminal code against citizens under its control. If any group of people illegally rise in armed rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the state, of course it is perfectly correct and legal in both domestic law and international law for that state to suppress the uprising, since the state is sovereign. If the state's criminal code authorizes lethal force to be used to put down armed insurrection by civilians (cf. Lincoln's action in the Civil War), then it is no business of other states to intervene. States are not legally entitled to supervise other states' domestic affairs.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sceptic: The data I cited regarding the number of American deaths caused by the lack of a public health care system can be read online at A. Wilper, et al, "Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 99, pp. 2289-2295 (December, 2009). The number of excess deaths caused in America annually by its deliberate political decision not to have a health care system without user fees as most of the rest of the developed world has is 45,000. Distinctions between passive and active causes tend to be purely Jesuitical. The US knows full well that these deaths arise from the lack of a public health care system; it has perfect power to correct that problem; yet it chooses not to. This is just the same as watching an infant drown in shallow water: in a common law jurisdiction you might be able to argue that you don't have a legal duty to rescue strangers, but in most civil law jurisdictions you would be criminally liable for doing nothing.

 

See how easy it is to make a convincing argument without incorrectly referring to those deaths as murder? Just a hint: anyone who would not accept "murder" as an accurate description of that would be less convinced by your argument due to that, whereas anyone who would accept the word "murder" as an accurate description would likewise not be convinced by your argument because they were already convinced before you made the argument.

 

No election has been held in Libya since the revolt broke out, so no country has any way of knowing whether the majority support the existing government or not. Tripoli and the Western half of the country which is in Gadaffy's control has the majority of the population, and I doubt he is maintaining control by holding everyone at gunpoint. The reason the West is in revolt and the East is not has a lot to do with tribal loyalties, not concerns over such Western interests as human rights and democracy.

 

That is a very legitimate point. Having noted some of the death tolls, it makes me wonder just how serious any of them are about what they are doing. I'd say 1 in 6000 is a rather low death rate for a civil war, though I understand it hasn't quite come to that with both sides being somewhat reluctant to shoot at each other. However, I seriously doubt an election would have told you what you seem to imply it would:

Repressive system

Libya is the second most censored country in the Middle East and North Africa, according to the Freedom of the Press Index.^[44]

 

Gaddafi's Revolutionary committees resemble similar systems in communist countries and reportedly 10 to 20 percent of Libyans work in surveillance for these committees, a proportion of informants on par with Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Kim Jong-il's North Korea. The surveillance takes place in government, in factories, and in the education sector.^[45]

 

Engaging in political conversations with foreigners is a crime punishable by three years of prison in most cases. In any case, Gaddafi removed foreign languages from school curriculum. One protester in 2011 described the situation as: "None of us can speak English or French. He kept us ignorant and blindfolded".^[46]

 

Gaddafi has paid for murders of his critics around the world.^[45][47] As of 2004, Libya still provides bounties for critics, including 1 million dollars for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist.^[48]

 

The regime has often executed opposition activists publicly and the executions are rebroadcasted on state television channels.^[45][49]

 

 

Opinion polls in various Western democracies often show that the leader has lost so much popular support that only 20% or 30% of the country approves of him. Would that justify the rest of the world invading that country to depose him because he had lost the support of the majority? The fact is that under international law the general rule in the modern world is that it is states that are recognized as sovereign and legitimate, not particular governments. Should the US have been invaded after Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore? Should other nations have frozen US foreign assets, opened a war crimes commission against the US government, and begun invasion plans against the US when the Natives rebelled against Federal authority at the Battle of Wounded Knee and were suppressed by force? Do the numbers of rebels suppressed by force count? If so, where can we draw the line between enough and too many?

 

This happens in a lot of countries all the time. What you are missing, is that there is 1) usually no clear leader with greater support, and 2) the people usually accept the current leader for a while and wait for the next scheduled revolution rather than demand their immediate withdrawal.

 

When nations recognize each other's sovereignty, they recognize the right of each nation to control its own domestic laws, form of choice of political leaders, and to enforce its own domestic criminal code against citizens under its control. If any group of people illegally rise in armed rebellion against the legally constituted authority of the state, of course it is perfectly correct and legal in both domestic law and international law for that state to suppress the uprising, since the state is sovereign. If the state's criminal code authorizes lethal force to be used to put down armed insurrection by civilians (cf. Lincoln's action in the Civil War), then it is no business of other states to intervene. States are not legally entitled to supervise other states' domestic affairs.

 

But remember that almost all countries consider the government to serve at the pleasure of its people (see: elections). Insurrections are to be put down on behalf of the people, not because the current ruler wants to stay in power against the will of the people.

[lemur]

But remember that almost all countries consider the government to serve at the pleasure of its people (see: elections). Insurrections are to be put down on behalf of the people, not because the current ruler wants to stay in power against the will of the people.

Imo, majority/up-risings may be subdued to the extent that it fosters democratic discourse where everyone's right to express political will is validated. Popular will is not legitimate in suppressing a minority or an individual (even when the individual is deemed a dictator). The most anyone can achieve, majority or minority, in democracy is the capacity to reason with their opponents and avert the will to authoritarian domination of one prerogative unilaterally over others. Popular insurrection may be "put down on behalf of the people" because the insurrection itself may be a social-movement that itself undermines the ability of the people or sub-segments thereof to freely express and negotiate their political will. People get caught up in majoritarianism and as a result suppress their true interests in favor of bonding together in the hope of political domination against an elite/individual they consider oppressive. This is why, for example, the left rallied not in favor of anything but rather against Bush - i.e. because "overthrowing the dictator" became a political motive that eclipsed any constructive policy goals. This is, in itself, a form of political repression that substitutes assent to opposition for direct subjugation by the regime. People are still diverted from pursuing their political interests democratically, only in the case of majoritarian coalition, they are repressing their own will voluntarily in favor of rallying (expressing solidarity) against some enemy.

Edited March 4, 2011 by lemur