National Sovereignty must be valued over Human Rights by the UN

The United Nations is a real world institution that must be protected so it can do as much good as allowed for in the world.

Creating specific human rights treaties are very individualistic and marginalize the importance of communities. Xiaorong (“Zaw-Rong”) Li explains:
“Human rights emerge in the context of particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions. The circumstances that prompted the institutionalization of human rights in the West do not exist in Asia… The importance of the community in Asian culture is incompatible with the primacy of the individual upon which the Western notion of human rights rests…. Human rights and the rule of law, according to the “Asian view,” are individualistic by nature and hence destructive of Asia’s social mechanisms.”
The UN Declaration of human rights outlines a very Euro-centric set of rights that are incompatible with much of the world’s beliefs. Protecting these rights would give the UN license to disregard the cultural preferences of billions of people—seriously undermining the UN's credibility. If the UN loses its credibility in Asia, not only would major countries like China potentially pull out of the UN, but after that, even if it wanted to work in a cultural compatible way with the East, it would not be able to, leaving potential atrocities to be un-interfered with. This does not mean that the UN should not act in extreme circumstances in Asia, because it values both its obligations, but it should respect Asia's countries culture and heritage by respecting their sovereignty and not imposing their Western set of human rights upon a centralized and community oriented culture.

Human rights law is very expansive and would provide the UN a blank check to overrule sovereignty for almost any reason. No nation would agree to let the UN maintain this new power. UN members that by comparison to other members most severely violate human rights would have to pull out of the UN because if they were no longer UN members, the UN would have no legal jurisdiction. Thus in an that world, the worst human-rights abusers wouldn’t be UN members which is comparatively worse because there would be absolutely no check on human rights abuses.

The impact to all of these arguments is that the UN losing its credibility will cause it to not be able to protect rights adequately over the world, especially in the East, and eventually globally as nations reject its supreme power. We must not value the UN's proposed set of global human rights over sovereignty on par because it would destroy the UN itself, stopping all its current positive influence on the world.

Violating Sovereignty and Imposing Human Rights has Disasterous Consequences.



Sub point A: Delegitimizing a National Government leads to Terrorism and Totalitarianism.

Social order rests on one keystone: the recognized authority of a government to enforce the law and protect rights.
Taking the responsibility of protecting rights away from a government means that individuals are left uncertain about who and what is in control of their society. This leads to a situation where groups compete to fill the power vacuum, often terrorizing the population and causing internal chaos. This fear is dangerous because as Erich Fromm writes: quote

If the economic, social, and political conditions on which the whole process of
human individuation13 depends, do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality
. . . [and] people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag
makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a
kind of life that lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape
from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and
the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual
of his freedom.14


Protecting UN human rights leads to worse human rights

Jeremy Moses writes:

Humanitarian intervention, by extension, may be seen as the militaristic wing of post-Cold War liberal globalisation, forcing – if peaceful conversion fails - errant nations to be ‘free’. “The argument made by those in favour of humanitarian intervention,” according to Anne Orford, “is that the use of force is necessary to address the problems of racist and ruthless dictators, tribalism, ethnic tension, civil war and religious fundamentalism thrown up in the post-Cold War era.”33 Those states or political leaders that engage in such behaviour are given the now familiar labels of ‘rogue states’, ‘failed states’, or ‘tyrants’ against whom action must be taken in order to preserve the new ‘global order’. “The failure to take such action”, Orford continues, “amounts to ‘abstention from the foreign policy debate’, and any challenge to interventionism ‘rewards tyrants’ and ‘betrays the very purposes of the international order.’”34 Humanitarian intervention, therefore, becomes the disciplinary arm of a liberal world order, enforcing adherence to the virtuous morality of the international community, and bringing freedom to all the individuals of
.0the world.

There are a number of dangers within such logic. First, as I outlined above, humanitarianism is said to negate sovereignty through the protection of individual rights, yet one cannot intervene solely against the perpetrators of human rights abuses, and the entire sovereign state becomes the target for punishment. Through this confused logic, the domestic analogy appears as incomplete, as does the image of a totality of global citizens, all under the protection of human rights. As a result, those whose rights are ostensibly being protected as global citizens may also find themselves under attack as members of the rogue state. An example that illustrates this claim is Kosovo.
Secondly, the freedom that is being brought by the intervening parties is, as it was for Rousseau, limited to those who support and enact the principles of liberal virtue, namely human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Or, more bluntly, “The people living in states subjected to intervention are only free to choose to be (almost) the same as those ‘saving’ them.”35 The sheer impossibility of such an aspiration will become evident through the historical and contemporary examples I outline below.
Finally, and most importantly, the ‘universal truth’ claim of today’s humanitarians has the potential to be an endlessly repetitive violent project, “constantly seeking new objects of ‘liberation’.”36 Hugo Slim has recognised this ‘moral paradox’, whereby violence becomes an acceptable means for enforcing universal standards of civilisation, arguing that “The humanitarian project in law and practice is one, therefore, which at
once legitimates and mitigates violence. Indeed, it legitimates it by mitigating it.”37 Anne Orford makes a similar point, further arguing that:
The horror of such narratives is that they can be, indeed must be, retold over and over, with the promised redemption involving ‘an ever greater subordination to already existing scenarios’. The creation or production of the self of the international community becomes an endlessly repetitive project.38
What must be recognised here is the ongoing danger of belief in the universalisable truth of liberal philosophy, as the imposition of such ideals upon a broad and infinitely varied population always requires the construction of good and evil identities, and the subsequent attempt to eradicate or assimilate (through force or rhetoric) that which is considered evil or incompatible with the dominant discourse. Most importantly, it can be shown that liberalism, or any other form of mass political ideology, is entirely reliant on having these enemies in order to continually justify its own project, meaning that the violence I have examined so far, be it on behalf of God, liberty, or some combination of the two, can never end. In this way, liberalism is perhaps more dangerous than even the most overtly violent political discourses, in that it must be constantly self-effacing. For it cannot be acknowledged that ‘freedom’ comes with a very strong and decisive set of conditions, that individuality must reside within conformity, that a specific conception of virtuous morality lies at the heart of what can and cannot be tolerated.


Moses is making three arguments: First, that valuing obligations to global human rights requires using a 'blunt instrument' like humanitarian intervention or sanctions that end up violating the rights of innocents. Second, Moses argues that it is only one particular vision of human rights that will be expressed in intervention; why is 'liberating' individuals not just actually 're-culturing' individuals to conform to western ideals of freedom. Finally, the most important argument is that a cycle of violence is inevitiable if we are allowed to justify violence according to human rights because human rights are premised on constructing good and evil identities. This unending cycle of violence is caused by accepting the liberal democratic view of human rights as universal.

The X Factor

Im at camp. My ex-girlfriend is here too. When we were dating, nothin much happened, but I was really attracted to her. Now she's flirting with me again!? What the hell do i do here?!

Damn Drug Addiction

I was waiting for a ride from school today, and one of my friends from middle school walks by me. A little louder than he should have been speaking, he was explicitly describing his pot sessions with his friends. What I mostly had felt was dissapointment, he was a great guy who was really talented, but he is ruining his high school education by getting into the drug scene. That leads to the bigger issue. Drugs. Yae, nae, or who the hay cares?
This is a topic I hope a lot of you will post on, because I want to hear other peoples points of view. Personally, I will never get into the drug scene, and that is not just ignorant assertions. I have conquered peer pressure before. I just sigh and turn my head whenever kids talk about their drug abuse, a lot even with pride. I think it is really screwing with your brain, and ruining a lot of great people's lives. The only catch I have is the illegality of it. I don't necessarily have an opinion on the illegality of drugs, but a few people raise some good points: Why is alchohol illegal, when it is involved in much more deaths than marijuana, and just as harmful to your body and state of consciousness? Other countries have it as legal, and they haven't turned into the spawn of the devil yet, or been torn to peices in mass confusion and social breakdown.
Now on the anti-drug side, just turn the argument: Make alchohol illegal, but the problem with that was seen in the 1940's duing the alcohol ban. It is a delicate balance. What do you think?

Eminent Domain Unjust

Here are some thoughts against Eminent Domain. Is it just or not, justice being to each their due. Now, a lot of people could say that 'to each their due' is to vague a definition of justice, but there is a specific thing I have in mind. Equal Opportunity. If everyone got equal opportunity to start off with, that is justice.
Eminent domain leads to an inevitable violation of equal opportunity, and is unjust. The reason for this is that eminent domain is always more likely to be used against people as races, ethnic groups, or minorities.
Sub Point A: Minorities do not have a lot of political power in our society, since they do not attribute enough votes overall to gain them a strong voice in the government's eyes. This means the government is more likely to use eminent domain against minorities because they are not at a great risk come election time of losing votes. Overall, this means that if you are born into a minority, and simply being born there means eminent domain is more likely to come and take away your property rights than some rich persons violates your equal opportunity to own property. In this way eminent domain is unjust because it takes away what these minorities are due in equal opportunity simply because they are minorities and don't have the political voice to stop it. This shows one way eminent domain is unjust.
Sub point B: Eminent domain is more likely to be used in blighted areas than rich or middle class areas. This is logical, since if you tore down someone's private airport to build a Wall Mart, it seems stupid. But why not tear down a run down apartment building in a blighted area to build a Wall Mart, and improve the areas economy. The reason this is unjust against minorities who live in blighted areas is simple. If you can't help but to live in a blighted area because of who you are, and because of that eminent domain is more likely to come and take away your property rights, thus violating your equal opportunity, it is unjust. Here I show in another way why eminent domain is inherently unjust to minorities in blighted areas
Sub point C: In our country, its good to ‘know people’. It is beneficial to have resources like money or power to protect yourself. People who really don’t have this type of social power are also having there equal opportunity violated. If you wake up one day to find you can’t own your property anymore because you weren’t the person to talk, pull strings, or bribe your way out something, that is violating your equal opportunity. You no longer have the same opportunity to own property just because you are someone in our society who doesn’t know the right people. This violates the justice of what you are due, which is equal opportunity.
In conclusion to those arguments, I have shown that the state using its power of eminent domain in any way is inherently unjust because it preys on certain types of people, violating their equal opportunity.
Argument 2: The state commonly says that a justification for eminent domain is just compensation. Just compensation is impossible.
Sub point A: There is no way to judge the sentimental value of property that the state is taking away from the person who owns it. The state says that it offers a good market price, but, for example, if a family is so attached to their property for whatever reason that they wouldn’t sell it for 10 billion dollars, it is not just compensation to just give them market price and then take it away. The reason this violates equal opportunity is because when we wake up in the morning, we take it for granted that the world will treat us like a human being, with feelings and emotions. If the state can simply disregard sentimentality when using eminent domain, it violates peoples equal opportunity to value things more than money could buy, or at least market price money. This shows how the reasons for eminent domain are unjust because the violate equal opportunity.
Sub point B: In the free market, the value of certain items or things fluctuates constantly, from minute to minute, or day to day. When the state uses eminent domain to take away property, it isolates a certain time in the market and gives someone that price for it. This violates that person's equal opportunity to hold out for a greater price, which is a key tool in a free market. If you wake up, and find you can’t try to get a good price on something because the state deliberately chooses a low price day for your property, that is unjust because you can no longer hold out for more money, like the rest of the sellers in a free market do. There is no way to predict the changes in market value, so the state using eminent domain by just compensation is impossible, and unjust.
Sub point C: Just compensation does not take into account surplus made by the transfer of property. Surplus happens when the seller has a lower valuation to someone with a higher valuation, and that person with the higher valuation pays more then market price. Everyone should have the opportunity to, if you are forced to sell something, find someone who you will generate surplus from. This is impossible with the states use of eminent domain, and thus unjust.
I have shown why eminent domain is inherently unjust, because it does not honor what people are do, as in equal opportunity. Over and over again it violates the equal opportunity of the politically and socially disadvantaged, those who must live in blighted areas, and how eminent domain destroys a persons rights in a free market for the pursuit of profit. A post on the pro-eminent domain side will be coming soon. Please respond.

Will Alito go Delete Roe?

Damn. Damn damn damn. While many people say Alito is a fair judge who will not go by his opinions, and who has both sides speaking for him, I say watch out. This guy is hard core anti-change.

On the subject of Roe vs. Wade concerning Alito, he will definitely fight to kill it. But that leads me into whether or not it should be killed. Now, everyone has an opinion on abortion, whether it is your parents or you own. Here is what I have to say.

Abortion should be a circumstantially based rule of law. For instance, if it is easily proven that the mother was raped, maybe is under age and still wants to complete school, cant take time off for the pregnancy, or doesn't have enough money to support a baby, it should be her choice. I agree with the common belief that after the first trimester, it is a growing life, but around the first trimester, while it is still just an embryo, as long as the mother has the law on her side, it is her choice.

Now, if the mother willingly had sex without protection and knew the risks, I don't think she should have the right to an abortion. But that is not meaning she should be left all alone caring for a baby. What I want to see happen is a law that requires all fathers, married or not, together or not, to have to provide financial aid to the mother, if not more. It is not fair just to leave the mother all alone, and let men sleep with whomever they want and not care about the effects.

So, if anybody has anything to say, post, and I will check up.

Welcome

Hey there. This blog is just getting started, so a little preview on what will go down. I am posting on random topics all over the world, from politics to polish hicks. Seriously though, I just want to get a discussion on the world up and running for whoever the hell wants to join in the fray. No stereotypes here, post whatever and say what you think.

I got my blog idea from my cousins blog, criticalmastiff.blogspot.com, which is a political mosh pit euphoria type thing. But he still cant beat me in chess.

So, now that I am up and running, lets start it off. Supreme Court. Abortion. Israel. Bush. Cheney. Oil. You name it and post it, we will discuss it.

Later,
--Evan