"The right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as “the right to enslave.” A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal—but neither can do it by right.
It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such “rights” by civilized countries . . . .
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictratorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country."
Sounds like a good principle. If you’re going to believe in rights and the legitimacy of state action, then I’d prefer that you to believe oppressive states have no right to exist (while also recognizing that the victims of the state do).
Rand is suggesting that a “nation” chooses to invade another country.
She also suggests that a nation should not liberate another country a the price of self-sacrifice, form here she is implying that war is possible without self-sacrifice?
She did not say a nation shouldn’t do it, only that it is not duty-bound to liberate other peoples. No nation need interfere with a dictatorship, just as I am not required to speak, and yet nations still hold the right to interfere, just as I still hold the right to free speech. Perhaps Rand believed a nation could wage war without “the price of self-sacrifice,” and in such cases it had the duty to do so, but there’s no indication of that in the quote.
As Rand defined sacrifice as the giving up the greater value for the lesser. Investment on the other hand is giving up the lesser value for the greater. In as much as nations are not one, or even a collection of individuals, but are a small few choosing for all. So, yes, it is possible to have war without self sacrifice. What we must first know is who makes the choices and based on what values? Who pays the bills? Who suffers the consequences?
I would, but only if I were confident that the population wanted help deposing dictatorial regimes. Otherwise, this group would be committing the very aggression most of us heartily oppose… thrusting a bunch of folks into a situation they don’t want to be in, and wouldn’t choose to be in otherwise.
Thats what I thought too. There would have to be some way to assess whether they want to be liberated. Certainly there’s no way to hold an election, and if they were open about it they woul get killed by the dictator. The rebel leaders would probably ask for help in secrecy, the institution would then discern whether those rebel leaders have the support of the population. In any case the rebels would have to do most of the work to liberate their country, the institution would be more about providing weapons and air support, not that many people on the ground. Often it would be enough to assassinate the dictator. But this is all irrelevant theorizing since it seems we’re stuck with a government monopoly on ‘liberating’ countries for now.
I would argue that democracies aren’t inherently (no matter how popularly this is the case) “slave nations.” Dictatorships, however, are inherently “slave nations.”
Do I have a choice in how much water my toilet is allowed to have or how much of my paycheck will be given to pay for police? Like I said, difference of degree.
Dictatorships aren’t inherently slave nations, and neither is it a matter of degree. Dictatorship and democracy are systems of political representation, both can be economically and politically free or unfree. The individual does not care whether he is coerced by a single person or a plurality of citizens. Liberalism is when neither a dictator or a plurality tell you what to do.
If a dictator tells me what I can and cannot do then to that extent I am a slave. The same goes with democracy, and yes I would argue it is a difference of degree. For example in the Soviet Union you could not leave, and in the US you can leave but you still have to pay taxes. But you’re right about dictatorships not necessarily being repressive, although could you point to some examples where they haven’t been more onerous than liberal democracies?
I can’t say I agree that a dictatorship is a form of political representation. This would imply that a dictator is interested in the concerns and desires of his people. I don’t think a dictatorship works like that… I could be wrong… but I don’t see how a dictatorship could be remotely representative… unless it’s only representative of the dictator.
