You might go around the world creating uncircumcised orphans? You’d have to think that one over, huh?
Then you sell them on the baby markets to middle-class families in the West to finance your Freedom Army.
Win-win, eh?
That is correct. Negroes, Arabs, Indians, Chinese do many things a Westerner would object to, but it is not under the jurisdiction of Western governments.
One may judge, one may sign a petition. But I would neither sign nor support such a signature. Mainly for the reason that such a petition is going to serve in plotting an excuse for coercive interference. Any interference may have unintended (?) consequences as well. I also deal with people in African Countries, China etc. as a matter of courtesy I stay out of their internal affairs as not to disturb the social consensus (some may call that the social contract)- Unless of course my opinion on a matter is asked for.
Female circumcision is mainly praticed in countries around the Sahara. It is usually not practiced by the Negroes that traditionally reside in Southern Africa (Bantu). They however practice male circumcision of boys that become recognized as man (some kind of rite of passage). That is of course voluntarily done, despite the fact that some social pressure may exist.
Translation: “We kin only do things in our juristikshun, bekuz nashunul bordurz iz so grate! Let’s deefeyn who we help beekuz uv arbitrary politeekul dessizhuns.”
“Yup, yer right. We cain’t judge them brown and yeller folks. They dun have morals what’s diffrunt than ours, on account of their being of primitive races and all.”
Translation: "We kint judge the brown peepul from so far away. Thei probly hav veree gewd reezunz for y they mutilate baby girls. We kant mayk dessizhuns for thu thurd wurld, beekuz its not leyk we liv bettur or anything.:
“No, yew kin judge, but I wuddnt, becuz then sombuddy meyt think thei hav eenuf suport to dew something abowt them kuting up litul girlz, and they meyt dew sometheng else what’s bad.”
Commentary: Give me a break, people. Are you seriously going to start throwing repellent moral relativism around here? We can’t judge their cultures from afar? I darn well can, and I do, and I say it’s a whole lot of brutal, misogynistic BS. If I see a parent beating their kid to death, can I not intervene (I know some of you will at least think no, sickos)? I, frankly, don’t see the difference.
Then feel free to consult with all your white, middle class anarchist buddies and form your Global Anarchist Freedom Army and go bomb the Pashtun tribal areas into your Anglo-European standards. Again though, don’t be surprised when one of the Pashtuns in the Glorious Globalist Inter-Market Territory you’ve just imposed decides to strap on some plastique and take out one of your security checkpoints. Then the GGIMT can enact a bunch of security and equal opportunity regulations to ensure that everybody’s rights to be free from harm are honored. And if it still doesn’t work, it just means you haven’t spent enough money.
Serious question: do you really believe anarchy in, say, Auburn, Alabama would look the same as anarchy in Soweto, South Africa? If the thought that there really could be a difference makes you uncomfortable, then you may want to reconsider your political philosophy. Perhaps you should be a social democrat instead.
I consider right morality to be universal. It isn’t about being Anglo-European or anything else. True, i am a product of Western civilization, to a great degree.
When ever did I say I was an anarchist?
I guess you didn’t; I just assumed you were. But if you’re going to crusade for a uniform standard of human rights, then you can’t really call yourself a minarchist either.
BTW, none of the Afrikaaners I’ve met sound like this at all.
I don’t see why not. If we consider protecting people from aggression a minimal function of government, than I can. That’s all I’m proposing. I just don’t have much respect for borders or national identities.
Social democrats and their Marxist kin don’t have much respect for borders or national identities either, so it sounds like you’re on the right track.
Ultimately, what you are proposing is a global government tasked with the enforcement of equality, and there will be nowhere to hide. No thanks.
Such people are no further from the truth overall (closer in some ways, further in others) than the current corporatist “capitalism” we live under.
Equality? Where did I say equality? Keeping people from cutting up babies is hardly enforcing equality. I fully expect that there will be vast differences between the circumstances of different individuals, families, even races. The only thing that will be equal is the law, which would be based on banning aggression. Like cutting up babies.
Um… I wasn’t trying to sound like an Afrikaaner. I was more mocking the ignorant racism inherent in your and John’s analysis of morality.
I made no analysis of morality.
If anything you are racist because you first see this in terms of race to begin with and then make the moral judgment yourself that these races (again a distinction you’ve made yourself) are in the wrong (right or wrong, it’s also them that is doing female circumcision; it’s not me forcing them). And then advocate killing them or imprisoning them. As well as (ignorantly) mocking their English speaking/writing ability.
It’s not out of our jurisdiction to attack these countries because they are of a different race or culture. We have a relatively similar culture with England, but I don’t advocate the overthrow or even interference of their coercive government (except in rhetoric). It’s their own fight. And I believe one that is best done through peaceful means and example. If not global trade – leading to more open minds and better living conditions naturally.
What is “aggression?” Is intra-familial corporal punishment aggression? What about communities that stone pederasts to death? What if the Hottentots just tattoo their babies? What about discrimination and nepotism? And what do dissenters have a “right” to do, even in staid cultures like Amish country? Having enshrined “rights,” there is no natural stopping point. And your globalist standard of equal rights means individual religious and cultural practices, and the national identities and borders that safeguard them, are out the window. So instead of numerous, diverse communities competing for people and capital, you end up with a homogenous super-state enforcing universal rights. And, people being people, the list of rights will expand endlessly: health, education, shelter, food, and on and on. Like I say, no thanks.
I just don’t see why you think the rules ought to be different for them than for us. Geography? As for the language, I was mocking you, not them.
Why must it be their own fight? If I have the ability to get rid of their coercive government and they do not, why can’t I do it for them? It’s a coercive government, you can hardly defend it by the non-aggression principle, unless you think no third parties can ever intervene to stop aggression.
Because maybe they disagree with you on whether their government is coercive. If I grow up in a Hasidic township that bans driving on Sautrday and I decide to rock the boat and hire your Global Anarchist Freedom Army to overthrow the elders, haven’t I restricted the choices of those who have invested their property and labor in creating a kosher community? Mind your own damn business.
Aggression means using force or fraud to coerce someone into taking an action or causing them harm against their will.
What precisely do you mean by pederast? Because it depends.
The “Hottentots” (why are you obsessed with that?) ought not tattoo their babies either. Parents have a responsibility to their children, not rights over them. Causing irreversible changes that the babies have not even an ability to choose is an unwarranted act of aggression.
I try to avoid rights language, but it is convenient to many of these discussions. In any case, have you actually read any of the Austrian philosophy around here? These rights are, firstly, purely negative, which is to say, you have a right not to be coerced. You have no right to demand anything of anyone else. Not health care or education or anything. The fact that people abuse the word “right” does not mean that a “right to education” is a legitimate construct.
You are right, however, in that I think that diversity is way, way overrated. I like it in my restaurant choices and that’s about it. The world profits NOTHING by a culture that mutilates babies (I will include those who circumcize males as well). These things can die, and any who mourn them are sick bleeps. People can dress how they want, speak how they want, eat how they want. They can have their cultures and ethnicities, right up to the point they start violating the far more basic and important HUMANITY of others. Then their culture needs to change, and yes, I’m willing to do what is necessary to enforce such a change if I have a means to do so. I’ve no doubt that in all such cultures there are doubters. Women who, feeling the agony of sex with their mutilated genitals with their domineering husbands, wish they could stop such a thing happening again. I would work with such within those cultures to help change things.
Why would fighting against someone else’s government even be beneficial to people who believe in that government? You’d end up having to kill or imprison not only everyone who is on goverment payroll (in the whole world to be fair), but anyone who could possibly step in to take over these positions because they believe in government. Government outlasts simply the lives of the people in power. Then this private army would occupy the nation killing or imprisoning anyone who might try and form a government.
There is no reason England would rejoice from the killing of Gordon Brown. Most of the population consents or does not mind him being there and some are on the payroll so their survival (it seems to them) depends on this governments existence. Nor do they regret the marvelous socialistic system: they can easily move elsewhere (as they do when they need real health care). In fact, foreigners poor into feed on their government (sustained by what is free in their markets) by the millions. However, magnanimous some might find this task to be, it is useless. The anarchists tried it on McKinley and only got the rotten Teddy Roosvelt as their reward and life in prison. That’s why I reject it. As I would reject violent force against any custom or government around the world. Unless it’s done by individuals in self-defense or the whole of an oppressed society themselves realizing that the power system is fit for overthrowing… for instance, by some increase in economic or political awareness.
Then you must surely have no objection to the US war on Iraq, but let’s forget the debate over principle for a moment. How do you think the rest of the world will react to your crusade to impose Western bourgeoise values on it? Kind of like the Iraqis are acting now, right?
And if we’re all going to be one big happy global family, that means civil rights laws and national security regulations and multilateral peacekeeping forces, so there goes your minarchist constitutional republic.
The problem with violent overthrow (or even by proxy) is not just that it is quixotic and blocked clearly by power inequalities between myself and those who sapped money from the masses in order to gain so much power. It is that even in the United States, a relatively free country, it would not work. People will not just see the utopia of stateless society all of a sudden and have a epiphany and become anarchists (except those who already believe it). They will only see what they want to see and matters will be made worse by the chaos that results from so much statism building up and then being gone. The statists will panic and reform the same old mess using most likely high school US Government 101 text books. And we’ll be back to square one. As most of the bureaucrats are easily replaceable with other drones, they won’t skip a beat. It will take all of about 2 or 3 months to hire new policemen, hire more tax collectors. All of the Senators and congressmen and most likely most of the presidential administration will be in the underground nuclear fall out shelter waiting to emerge. I mean it just goes on and on.
Weaker governments may seem easier to reverse or topple, but not really considering most of these governments are also related to the people and would require crushing all connections with their constituents (throwing them in prison or killing them). As well as worrying about the consolidation of power by surrounding governments happening: basically forming alliances or warring with one another over this newly toppled government and sovereignty. And no one could argue logically that they’d give them anarchism but more statism and millions of deaths crushing opposition, put up walls, genocide… every country would see it on CNN satellite feed and their states would panic and then trace it back to the US. US would imprison you… or if they were stateless somehow they would not have the military might in order to fight the blowback that comes from such militious aggression on other countries. Or if they did, you’d be up against a multi-state military force that would easily dispose of a private army by sheer numbers and force. The league of all the remaining states would call the stateless regions “undemocratic and unstable” and then they would join together and making us into colonies of their states. They’d steal oil or “nationalize” it, make us socialist, put in a puppet president to federate the Union back into existence. And they’d get Canadians or Mexicans or something to run our governments. Probably after cutting off all our trade with other nations via sanctions in order to starve us out of comfortable living conditions. Making us submit to statism or else die. Making it too difficult for many to resist such a situation.