-
How would a government decide which genocides to stop? Consider Mao’s killing of 80,000,000, or Stalin’s killing of 10,000,000 before WWII. Should the US invaded China or the USSR to stop them?
-
Who in the government makes the value judgement to decide on the parameters and definitons for the “should?”
-
Is genocide a term, like terrorism, that is merely in the eyes of the beholder? E.g. George Washington was seen as an insurgent in the eyes of the British Crown, Lenin seen as a liberator to those who were not slaughtered, etc.
-
Would more governement killing (the intervention to stop genocide) stop other government killing (the genocide)?
-
Is the US Government the best government to intervene in stopping genocide? What might the perspective of an American Indian be?
I find it funny that the topicstarters asks a question on schools of thought that study International Relations between states (in the hic and nunc) (i.e. descriptive) and that people answer with the normative libertarian thoughts.
Anyway; I don’t have a clear view on either schools so I don’t know.
Thanks for proving my point.
He’s not asking ‘what do you think about what IR ought to be’ but what free market libertarians/austrian school thinks of the theories that are used to analyse IR. Hence; him giving a wiki link to the realist and liberal school of IR.
I didn’t.
Ok.
Well they are for a final arbiter, the international system is anarchic, oh noes!
They’re for peace too. World government, no more wars! “Peace”!
What steps?
First world central bank. Then world government. - If you want Hoppe’s awesome lecture on this, search or I can go digging. [:)]