Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Montague]

Which is why its interesting within the concept of states rights in the united states, because immigration/emigration is trivial for the bulk of the population.

(Not to say it's pleasant - You'll obviously not be bringing everything with you when you go. But you always CAN go. And I know people who have over the gay marriage thing.)

Which is why I personally believe in greater states rights. There should be a place for almost anybody in the USA. Places like hippie communes and the such should be encouraged even and states should adapt experimental policy to determine what works and what doesn't. Feds should leave the states alone when it comes to most policy.

Americans are a highly mobile society and America is a culturally homogeneous place, for the most part. I think this lends it's self toward experimentation and variation with government policy without doing much harm to anybody. Legalize gay marriage in one state, ban it in the other, ect. Let people decide the type of society they wish to live in.

@MetalSlimeHunt

True, war and sepaertist movements tend to create a massive amount of butthurt resentment at it's conclusion, nomatter who wins. I personally find things like slavery and genocide and eating babies and violations of human rights to be indefensible, appaling and worthy for cause of invasion and there is no cultural defense for such things. I'm just not sure we are obligated to do so, or the wisdom of such meddling. I guess economic sanctions and the sort are one way of doing it, but that creates enemies the same as invasion.

The cause of freedom is something I take seriously, but I wonder how to weigh that against the policy of 'live and let live'. I also wonder what outrages are justifiable. What is horrific enough to warrant interference with a sovereign state, exactly? If moral sensitives shift we might be raging against countries doing relatively benign things.

[MonkeyHead]

Passive intervention (sanctions, embargoes etc.) I can fully understand, accept and possibly be in favour of. But covert hands on "fiddling" via CIA/MI6 or downright bribery/explotation of needs and weakness? No thank you. That kind of "interference" seems far too much like social engineering for me. Nations/cultures have a right to make thier own decisions, even bad ones, and suffer appropriate consequences, but not pre-emptive punishment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The CIA/MI6 style fiddling is a completely different kind of thing that generally is all about gaining some kind of geopolitical advantage and doesn't really have anything to do with human rights.

[Montague]

The CIA/MI6 style fiddling is a completely different kind of thing that generally is all about gaining some kind of geopolitical advantage and doesn't really have anything to do with human rights.

CIA and covert forces like SF often go into countries to oust the government, train and arm malcontents and back coups and the sort. Like what the US did with Chile and Allende. Allende was a dirty commie and was seen as being potentially ruinous for human rights and Chile's economy, but it was also in the USA's best interests, for economic and geopolitical reasons. Such a strategy could defend human rights and achieve a goal if the conditions are right. Historically, it's always done for the best interests of the country. Even this thing in Africa with the USA hunting down the Lord's Army, it was a reciprocal diplomatic deal because they helped defeat our enemies, so we'll help them defeat theirs. It was less about The LRA being evil bastards, but it certainly contributed.

edit; my posts are getting tl;dr enough as it is.

[GlyphGryph]

So, MSH, with your interventionist approach:

Would you be willing to use force on a foreign culture to prevent them from eating their babies alive? Even if it meant you would be fighting the entire population, who overwhelmingly support the practice?

Would you accept another cultures demand that we give all of our children an injection before birth that prevents them from ever experiencing pain or the mental anguish of hardship and defeat, that would make them ultimately happy at all times?

[GoombaGeek]

Would you invade a country where all science is replaced by ludicrous hypothetical scenarios, ALL BY YOURSELF?!

Would you be unwilling to let the baby-eating guys eat themselves extinct with no intervention whatsoever?

[MonkeyHead]

I am pretty sure that the UN Decleration of Human Rights pretty much confers upon one the right to think and act what you want to, without fear of persecution from others.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So, MSH, with your interventionist approach:

Would you be willing to use force on a foreign culture to prevent them from eating their babies alive? Even if it meant you would be fighting the entire population, who overwhelmingly support the practice?

Yes. In such a hypothetical, though it is a somewhat absurd hypothetical, I would be willing to use force. Overwhelming force. In this situation, it would be best to take a "ripping off a bandage" course of action by utterly crushing them once to solve the problem permanently.

Would you accept another cultures demand that we give all of our children an injection before birth that prevents them from ever experiencing pain or the mental anguish of hardship and defeat, that would make them ultimately happy at all times?

As such an injection does not actually exist, I cannot say for certain. Such a thing could very well cause total psychological collapse, but it also could be purely beneficial. As such my answer is [INSUFFICIENT_DATA].

[GlyphGryph]

GoombaGeek, the questions were from the story I linked, which is entirely relevant to the situation. If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

Trivializing the situation as you are doing with your sarcasm, GoombaGeek, essentially saying "Actually thinking about our actions is stupid" is, personally, an invasion-worthy immoral abomination.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Your story is kind of huge, Glyph. I'm only partway through it and LessWrong's annoying approach to everything isn't making it go much faster.

[Montague]

GoombaGeek, the questions were from the story I linked, which is entirely relevant to the situation. If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

Trivializing the situation as you are doing with your sarcasm, GoombaGeek, essentially saying "Actually thinking about our actions is stupid" is, personally, an invasion-worthy immoral abomination.

It requires an actual solid moral philosophy to determine what is right and wrong. So while most cultures will find the baby-eating villians worthy of annihilation, the baby eaters themselves will see themselves as victims of oppressive non-baby-eating heathens in such an invasion. So who is right? Moral relativism is sort of a lazy alternative to a defined moral code, but it's pretty common for a state to adopt such a philosophy for foreign policy. Mexico is a good example, it rarely condemns other nations for anything and no other nation has a grudge against it either. That nation has virtually no enemies, unlike it's neighbor to the north which is quite certain it is correct and has more enemies then anybody else.

[Shadowlord]

If anyone's going to degenerate into a fascist state anytime soon it's going to be Greece, not some theoretical breakaway state.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't see Greece going fascist. The Golden Dawn would certainly love to, but the Greek Communists would love to have their authoritarian state as well, and they hate each other with a passion that you rarely see in politics. Both groups have existent support amongst the population, but neither will be able to overwhelm the democrats if push comes to shove. The democratic factions don't care much for each other, but they know when the time to embrace their commonalities is.

Now, the Golden Dawn does have a lot of support amongst the Greek police, but this is hardly unexpected. Police are very much in a field where fascism best serves their interests, so it only follows that many of them would support a fascist party. However, even in Greece's current not-fascist state the Greeks are prepared to riot and oppose the government. If the government actually became a fascist entity there would be a rebellion immediately.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Economic uncertainty can lead to some very foolish decisions by a voting populace that they cannot reverse. Godwin intentional because it's rather relevant, we could see a lot of similar stories turning up in these days of pivotal worldwide electoral decisions. Especially looking at America.

[Glowcat]

If the situations were reversed - were another more righteous people were willing to force their "moral superiority" on us, would you accept? Would you be willing to force your morality on those who want nothing to do with it, simply because you're "right"?

As a less hypothetical, would you have accepted things like the crusades as a moral necessity? Things like christian missionaries tearing apart native cultures to save their souls?

When you say "I think we should invade other countries to stop them from doing bad things", you're opening up a huge can of worms that eventually boils down to "might makes right".

One country invading another to force a change in governance is a tricky subject but do you really think that those harmed in the other country don't deserve to have their rights considered? Do we consider it 'might makes right' when our legal system incarcerates violent criminals since that is enforced through force? If you consider that also to be 'might makes right', then why is it more egregious an offense when another country invades them under similar pretenses of enforcing an ethical outlook? Is the internal 'might makes right' more just than the external (relative to the country's legal borders)? Furthermore, countries that treat their own subjects with little consideration also tend to extend that view to foreigners. Should the people of the supposed invader just wait around until the reverse occurs? Where there is immigration, should families in the "good country" simply accept it when their relatives suffer from the actions of the other country's majority? Given how the political voices of people in a country aren't always equal, how does non-intervention deal with countries which disenfranchise enough people that its laws don't actually reflect the majority views? Why are we granting greater legitimacy to what is defined as a country in the first place? Is it more essential a political group than a county, a city, a neighborhood? /question barrage

If the fringiest fringe of right-wing politics took over America somehow... I might actually support an invasion of us if it was the only promise (however faint) of returning to sanity. I doubt their vision of the USA would be stable in the long run anyhow, not without going North Korea.