Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

May countries that do not respect rights be wiped out?

Rate this topic


Ifat Glassman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's highly contextual; no country today embraces indivdual rights, though some are far better than others. I have no problem with "carpet bombing" extremely anti-freedom countries, like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and the Imaginary Land of Palestine.

I quote Ayn Rand:

"This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours.

That's why we have to be interested in the philosophy of government and in seeing, to the extent we can, that we have a good government. A government is not an independent entity: it's supposed to represent the people of a nation.

If some people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany—they deserve whatever their government deserves.

The only thing to be concerned with is: who started that war? And once you can establish that it is a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the "rights" of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and therefore stepped outside the principle of rights."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about countries that are not pro individual rights, but that didn't attack your country - do you still have a right then to carpet bomb them because of their opinion?

What about Iraq? Do you think that the US should carpet bomb the cities where terrorists are active, even though the terrorists themselves are not Iraqi?

Moreover, I think carpet bombing should be the very last resort, and not the first resort. It is not always possible for an individual, or a group of men to take off the government. There are cases of dictatorships that the citisens do not support the actions of the government, They don't like the government, but they would be risking their lives if they oppose it. Would you hold these men guilty of the actions of their govenment and kill everyone indescriminantly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any country that doesn't embrace indivual rights should be wiped out", when "wiped out" means to carpet bomb the whole country.

To be more accurate I would say:

A government that doesn't respect individual rights has no "right" to exist, no moral sanction to exist.

It should be abolished by those who are responsible for it.

[...] They don't like the government, but they would be risking their lives if they oppose it. Would you hold these men guilty of the actions of their govenment [...]

They can suffer as long as they want, but as soon as they demand that I risk my life instead ... that is where I draw the line.

You are responsible for your government. (Read: you are responsible to accept the consequences of the actions of the government you allow to exist.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are responsible for your government. (Read: you are responsible to accept the consequences of the actions of the government you allow to exist.)

Did you read We the living? Would you hold Kira responsible for the actions of that government?

You are assuming that people in those countries enjoy individual rights and freedom, which is not true.

Kira's options:

1. Going against the establishment - which would mean death not only for her but it would put also her family in danger.

2. Leaving the country - which she tried and died.

A government is not an independent entity: it's supposed to represent the people of a nation.

It is supposed to but it is not in case of a dictatorship.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read We the living? Would you hold Kira responsible for the actions of that government?

Kira, Ayn Rand, and all of us must accept the consequences of our government's actions. (I was very careful in my wording before).

I do not hold the truly innocent guilty of any crime, however the bombs I must drop in self defense will not distinguish between the innocent and the guilty.

You are assuming that people in those countries enjoy individual rights and freedom, which is not true.

If a people wishes to live under a government that respects their unalienable rights, then they must do what rights require, they must exercise those rights and take action.

Kira's options:

1. Going against the establishment - which would mean death not only for her but it would put also her family in danger.

2. Leaving the country - which she tried and died.

You have identified the two options left open to a rational person in an immoral country: stay and resist or leave. I have not read “We the Living” however it sounds like Kira acted rationally: she left.

That last quote isn’t mine but to answer: the citizens of a country are the ones who allow the government to exist, including a dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kira, Ayn Rand, and all of us must accept the consequences of our government's actions. (I was very careful in my wording before).

A person can only be responsible for their own choices and actions. If I do not support actions of my government - how can I be responsible for them? How can I be responsible for the irrational choices of other people or how can I be held responsible for the cowardice of others - being afraid to go against the dictatorship?

I am an individual. I am not a part of any collective.

A rational person living in an irrational/immoral country must accept the consequences of their government's actions but is not responsible for them.

You have identified the two options left open to a rational person in an immoral country: stay and resist or leave. I have not read “We the Living” however it sounds like Kira acted rationally: she left.

She did not leave. She died while trying to escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person can only be responsible for their own choices and actions.

The choice is to stay or leave.

We are all responsible for the government we allow to exist.

[...] Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences.

[Q&A from her speech “Global Balkanization”]

You have identified the two options left open to a rational person in an immoral country: stay and resist or leave. I have not read “We the Living” however it sounds like Kira acted rationally: she left.

You seem very argumentative here. As I said, I did not read the book. The question is: were her actions rational or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kira's actions were rational, and she did TRY to leave. If one has a govermnet committing massive atrocities on principle, then one should either try to fight the government or try to leave. Kira chose the latter, since the former was impossible.

I do not think a free country necessarily should destroy an unfree country (unless the unfree country poses a threat), but it has a right to do so.

In Iraq, I think we should use whatever methods are most effective to break the will of the combatants (Iraqi or otherwise); since I'm not a military expert, I can't recommend a specific course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice is to stay or leave.

We are all responsible for the government we allow to exist.

I do not consider myself a part of any 'we are all'. I am only responsible for my own actions and choices.

If I am choosing to stay and fight for freedom in such country - I may have to pay the price for my choice (maybe death).

If I am choosing to leave - I may need to endure the consequences of my trying to escape (maybe death).

I am however not personally responsible (and nether was Kira) for the atrocities commited by such government. I am also not responsible for the irrationality, cowardice, or passivity of others.

Kira's actions were rational, and she did TRY to leave. If one has a govermnet committing massive atrocities on principle, then one should either try to fight the government or try to leave. Kira chose the latter, since the former was impossible.

I do not think a free country necessarily should destroy an unfree country (unless the unfree country poses a threat), but it has a right to do so.

I agree.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are responsible for the atrocities of your government if you do not reject the underlying principles which guide those atrocities. If you are an Iraqi civilian that wants the sharia to be the law of the land, you're part of the problem even if you never put on a bomb and blow yourself to bits. If you reject those principles, you are innocent of whatever your government does without your say-so.

As for whether a free(er) country should carpet-bomb less-free countries: no. Carpet bombing is expensive and probably not worthwhile as a strategy unless an aggressor has attacked you in kind. It is much easier and cheaper if you stand strong and demonstrate that you're willing to fight when necessary; this keeps said aggressor from attacking.

A free(er) country, however, has the right of sovereignity because sovereignity is derived from the delegated rights of the individuals protected by that country. A country that does not protect or recognize the rights of individuals cannot have any delegated rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are responsible for the atrocities of your government if you do not reject the underlying principles which guide those atrocities.
Well, I understand the sentiment, but what exactly does "responsible for" refer to? Suppose you do reject those principles, are you not also responsible? How do you connect the concept of responsibility to rejection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the sort of principled rejection where you do what you can (without being self-sacrificial) to resist the evil government. Rejection with integrity, in other words. Depending on your personal values, it may be a self-sacrifice for you to take to the streets in resistance to a dictatorship . . . it may even be too much of a risk to publish writings, etc. However, you can always give money quietly to clandestine organizations, or let their members stay briefly in your house, or hide slaves, or refuse to turn in your neighbors for being Jews, etc. etc. etc.

Although I have great respect for the sort of martyrs that fight tyrrany all the way to the wall, you don't owe it to anyone to make a martyr out of yourself, and in the long run it's the small acts of cautious, principled, organized resistance that give people the chance to fight.

How could you be responsible for the crimes of other men, even if they claim that they do it on your behalf? It is only if they are actually acting consistently with the principles that you yourself espouse that you become explicitly connected, philosophically, with their actions.

"Responsible for" means that you, in some manner, enacted the cause (bad philosophy) of which dictatorship and tyrrany are the effect. Isn't that the measure of responsibility? That you caused what happened?

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Responsible for" means that you, in some manner, enacted the cause (bad philosophy) of which dictatorship and tyrrany are the effect. Isn't that the measure of responsibility? That you caused what happened?
That is how I understand the concept of responsibility -- causation to some extent. There is a difference between responsibility and blame, in that blame is responsibility plus bad action. For example, if your tree (which I assume is in good shape) unforseeably blows down in a terrible storm and whacks the neighbor's roof, you are responsible but not blameworthy. You are responsible for the evil acts of your government unless you are physically unable to stop the government or leave; you are to blame for those acts if you vote for that government, espouse their philosophy, or voluntarily do the government's bidding (for example join their military when you have the choice to not be in the military -- usually there's no choice).

The Iranian government (to pick one evil government) exists because virtually all Iranians give it at least a low-level sanction, by continuing to live and work there, pay taxes, and in general make Iran a viable country. These people are responsible for the Iranian government (they causally contribute to its existence), though a number of them have stopped contributing and have left the country. Of those people, some are actually to blame for that mess, for example having voted for the current nutcase president or having advocated the rule of ayatollahs. Even those who wear the chador are to blame (which was not required by law, though President Fruitloop is pushing to change the law), though in the big scheme of things I don't heap lots of scorn on chador-wearers 'cuz I hold that Vevak agents are a much greater avil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Iranian government (to pick one evil government) exists because virtually all Iranians give it at least a low-level sanction, by continuing to live and work there, pay taxes, and in general make Iran a viable country.

By this reasoning, wouldn't it also be proper to hold responsible, those countries and individuals who trade with these countries. Russia buying Irans oil would support the country's continuation. Walmart buying products made in china indirectly supports the communist regime. Do you think that would make wal-mart partially to blame for the communist parties power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that would make wal-mart partially to blame for the communist parties power?
The easy answer is that it does, but I'm not sure what the alternatives are. Consider the alternatives that North Korean citizens face -- killing themselves, or staying in North Korea. The alternative of leaving isn't open to them. I do not think that Walmart, Target etc. do as much as possible to oppose the Red Chinese slave masters, but there probably are nearly no winter coats produced in the free world, so their choices seem to be limited to non-existence (from a business POV) or support of the regime. So I'm not sure how much blame they deserve, because I don't know the supply of cheap shoes and winter coats. There is no question that Walmart and similar companies are partially responsible for the current regime of Red China, but there is also no question that they are partially responsible for the increased economic freedom there over the past 15 or so years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all responsible for the government we allow to exist.

???

I am responsible, you are responsible, everyone on this forum is responsible ... thus we are responsible: it is called proper english grammar.

I will explain the nature of that responsibility in the following post (though I thought the meaning was clear from the Ayn Rand quote I provided). However, do not take advantage of my benevolent nature by insultingly mischaracterizing my remarks as collectivist.

******************

Ahem?! Well I guess it will be all in one post.

******************

Responsibility only attaches to your freely chosen actions. You are responsible for your own sustenance and happiness and in society you are responsible to respect the rights of others.

If you wish to live in a free country, it is your responsibility to take the action require to make that happen. Just wishing won’t make it so.

Rights give everybody on earth the moral sanction to alter or abolish their government if it doesn’t respect those rights. And the responsibility to exercise that moral sanction is also theirs.

How could you be responsible for the crimes of other men [...]

"Responsible for" means that you, in some manner, enacted the cause (bad philosophy) of which dictatorship and tyrrany are the effect. Isn't that the measure of responsibility? That you caused what happened?

You cannot be held responsible for the specific crimes of a dictatorship you do not freely endorse. But you are responsible to change your situation if that is your desire. In other words, you are responsible to change your government if you don’t like it -- by rational moral action when possible, by the use of retaliatory force when necessary or by leaving.

You are perfectly free to take no action against the tyranny under which you live and to suffer as long as you like. I am not asking anyone to sacrifice themselves for me. However, nor should they ask me to sacrifice myself for them. If the country they allow to exist threatens me with an atomic weapon, my country would be perfectly justified in nuking them until they stop. And at that point the integrity one gains by rejecting a dictator’s ideology will have evaporated in a mushroom cloud, everyone is a legitimate target. The citizens of Japan and Germany learned that hard lesson in WWII.

[editted here (*******) to be one post instead of two]

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responsibility only attaches to your freely chosen actions.
Then do you deny that the Spanish flu was responsible for 50 million deaths in 1918, that hurricane Katrina was responsible for some $20 billion of damage, and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was responsible for nearly 200,000 deaths?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then do you deny that the Spanish flu was responsible for 50 million deaths in 1918, that hurricane Katrina was responsible for some $20 billion of damage, and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was responsible for nearly 200,000 deaths?

Considering the context of this entire thread: yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then do you deny that the Spanish flu was responsible for 50 million deaths in 1918, that hurricane Katrina was responsible for some $20 billion of damage, and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was responsible for nearly 200,000 deaths?

There seems to be some issue here with the definition of responsibility. DavidOdden seems to mean responsible in the sense that it was 'caused by' whereas marc K seems to mean it in the sense of obligations which are attached to your chosen actions.

I have a big problem in agreeing with the carpet bombing approach to international issues. In a pure 'capitalist rights respecting country' vs. a 'tyranical statist country' I have no problem with invasion. Or in issues of self defense, if a country attacks your citizens I think it is entirely proper to obliterate the other country. But the idea of a country like the US that steals 40% of it's citizens wealth as opposed to some other country that steals, say, 70%, being justified in invading because they give lip service to rights just doesn't sit well with me. Countries either always respect individual rights or they do not in the same way that individuals are honest or they are not. If I stole a dollar I don't think I would be in a better place morally then someone who stole $100. So my question is, is the scale of a crime(indivual or government) important in a moral way? Obviously I would rather have someone steal $40 from me then $70, but should weight be given differently to each in moral judgement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this topic is a complicated issue for a lot of reasons. On some level I feel that by allowing countries such as Iran to exist -- i.e. not taking aggressive military action, I am hurting my own interests. Fighting for a capitalist (or as close as you can get to one) government to prevail in the Middle East will improve my life economically. Further, allowing theocratic dictatorships to sit on wealth that allows them access to weapons that I know could be used to annihilate me, or my Annihilate , is frightening to say the least.

I have no doubt given Iran's political statements about the US that if given the chance (which it looks like they are coming close to) they will attack my country and my interests. Rather than carpet bombing I would first attempt to strategically bomb military sites (it is up to the Iranian people to take down their own government, like we did here), however if this does not eliminate the problem then I will fight a logical threat before it becomes a physical action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some issue here with the definition of responsibility. DavidOdden seems to mean responsible in the sense that it was 'caused by' whereas marc K seems to mean it in the sense of obligations which are attached to your chosen actions.
Yeah, my point is that "blame" and "responsibility" are related but not identical. Responsibility is the broader concept, as Jennifer said "that (you) caused what happened". Blame is a moral evaluation. Of course I could use the word "responsible" only to refer to "caused some good outcome" for example "Bill Gates is responsible for the massive expansion of the software industry". But that doesn't mean that "responsible" then means "caused a good outcome".

Of course, carpet-bombing dictatorships which to not initiate force against free nations is not morally justified. When they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself -- with no concern for the "innocent civilians" who are in part responsible for the attack, even if some are not to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, my point is that "blame" and "responsibility" are related but not identical. Responsibility is the broader concept, as Jennifer said "that (you) caused what happened". Blame is a moral evaluation. Of course I could use the word "responsible" only to refer to "caused some good outcome" for example "Bill Gates is responsible for the massive expansion of the software industry". But that doesn't mean that "responsible" then means "caused a good outcome".

Of course, carpet-bombing dictatorships which to not initiate force against free nations is not morally justified. When they attack you, you have the right to defend yourself -- with no concern for the "innocent civilians" who are in part responsible for the attack, even if some are not to blame.

Ayn rand had mentioned in an essay(i forget which) that a moral country has the right but not the responsibility to invade and immoral one if they deem it to be in their best interests. I assumed that carpet bombing could be instituted on the same grounds. I am wondering where the cutoff line is in both directions. How bad does a country have to be before they can properly be invaded or bond and how good does a country have to be to have the right to invade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is how I understand the concept of responsibility -- causation to some extent.

You are responsible for the evil acts of your government unless you are physically unable to stop the government or leave.

But this doesn't apply to a situation when a thug demands your wallet at gunpoint or forces me to do normally improper things. Why would increasing the number of thugs into a government-altering entity suddenly make a victim responsible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...