This is a continuation of a discussion from the just post anything here board.

quote:

I accept America's faults: we are moving away from free market solutions and our tradtitional vales are constantly eroding.

The fact that those are what you see as our faults shows how we are not necessarily a force for good in the world. "Free Market Solutions" are what allow our companies to screw the rest of the world. With "traditional values", you either mean our puritanical cultural heritage or our liberal philosophical heritage. If you are concerned with the erosion of the prior, I must say that I am quite happy we don't burn witches and sow scarlet letters these days. If it is the latter, than you and your precious administration are responsible for eroding that more than anyone. Torturing people and arresting them without due process represents a regression in my opinion. Foreign policy that says we do what we want because nobody can stop us erodes our moral standing. As for us being a force for good in the world, your enemies being worse than you doesn't make you good.

quote:

Is there any place you would rather live FML?

No. But I also would have rather lived in Rome than anywhere else in the world, that doesn't mean Rome was a force for good. I need to stay here to prevent you from continuing to use the most powerful nation on earth for your New American Century nightmare.

That doesn't mean I don't disagree with you, just that I'll be more civil about it.

quote:

I would like to hereby state that all disparaging remarks made about fellow members of the great and honorable coalition against racism have been categorically withdrawn. I apologize to my fellow founding fathers for my arrogant dishonor.

quote:

I do, thus I am in favor of the Iraqi invasion.

The Iraqi people want us to leave. Is self determination one of the Lockean things you support?

quote:

How are you defining liberalism?

Philosophy founded on the idea of human rights.

quote:

Why didn't the Decleration of Indpendence have a call to all other nations to join in rebellion to ensure god given rights?

Jefferson did say that there comes a time when it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the ties that bind them with another. But Jefferson did not found liberalism, Locke did. Locke did say that people have a duty to dissolve their tyrannical governments.


You acknowledge that government isn't something that inherently exists right? I think you likely understand this better than most liberals. There fore, all power that we afford the government must be done in a way that the government does not violate our rights.

By "signing" our social contract, we hand certain rights over to the government, most prominently (and maybe solely), the right to punish offenders. Locke's concept of rights said that when someone places themselves in a "state of war" with you, that they sacrifice certain rights.

You thence have the right to defend your self and to imprison them. Because we handed the right of imprisonment over to the government, we set up safeguards against the free reign of the power we just gave the government. To arrest someone without due process would facilitate the governments ability to violate the rights of the people. So we have due process to ensure to the greatest extent we can, that the people we imprison are in fact guilty. If you imprison an innocent person, you have violated their rights.

To be honest, although I find torture despicable, if I felt that a person was convicted through a standard and fair process of law, I wouldn't lose any sleep over their torture.

We have already imprisoned people for over a year who we subsequently let go without formal charges. That would not be allowed in our court system. Now I'm not suggesting that they get a trial with all of our standards for how evidence must be collected and presented, or the ability to post bail, but a jury of American citizens and an appointed judge would be a start. A hearing soon after their arrest would be necessary to see that we have enough evidence. Personally, I don' mind if that phase is done by military court.

quote:

You have stretched Kants thoughts on morality to what you believe are Kants thoughts modern nations.

Seriously, if you don't know what you are talking about, don't retort.

Kant believed that we are inherently flawed (like the Bible does) and that we are destined to promote immoralities and incorrect ideas purely by nature of our time. But that over time we progress. We learn and we refine ourselves. Our constitution was written a half decade before Kant's essay on perpetual peace, so I'm guessing he definitely counted it as a flawed document of it's time.

Don't feel like Kant is being judgmental, he's not. He thought it would be selfish and useless for someone to become so enlightened that they were no longer relative to the ideas and people of their time. If you are too far ahead of your time, you can't help it to progress because society doesn't move by leaps, it crawls forward.

quote:

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

So basically, everything is a human right that can somehow fall under life or liberty and then is sure to be encompassed by the pursuit of happiness. Correct?

So you think liberalism means we have to enforce human rights everywhere? How are you defining liberalism? Why didn't the Decleration of Indpendence have a call to all other nations to join in rebellion to ensure god given rights? I honestly can't even comprehend what you are talking about on this issue anymore. You have thrown out terms that are loosely related and dressed them up to be indentical.

quote:

Although I do not think they are identical, there are parallels.

Just like there are parallels between dogs and frogs - but no one compares them.

quote:

I assumed that since you have a Poli Sci degree that you would understand (with the Kant reference).

You have stretched Kants thoughts on morality to what you believe are Kants thoughts modern nations. You're Kant explanation makes no sense, especially when in regards to this current conversation.

FML, see my post.

quote:

Which lay reader are you talking, me, bushsupporter, or myself? Bushsupporter and I both have political science degrees.

No, I know that you wouldn't misunderstand. But others might.

quote:

As I originally asked, please define them. It might be best for you to include a list.

For this argument, i think life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are adequate.

quote:

No I don't agree with this and I do not abandon liberalism all together.

quote:

We have no duty to extend human rights.

Your thoughts?

quote:

No, you are doing this because you think states act like individuals.

Although I do not think they are identical, there are parallels.

quote:

Being modern is not inherently immoral. Please explain when you much such blanket claims.

I assumed that since you have a Poli Sci degree that you would understand (with the Kant reference).

Since you obviously don't understand, I will relate it to something more basic (though not a perfect parallel to Kant). The idea of original sin- that we are inherently not perfect and must work to achieve such perfection, although not fully attainable, is relative to the Kantian idea I referenced.

quote:

Although I fear that the lay reader confuses that with being realistic, I can use it.

Yeah, I bet that's the reason you didn't use it in the first place. Which lay reader are you talking, me, bushsupporter, or myself? Bushsupporter and I both have political science degrees.

quote:

The rights that are inherent to any human solely by existing.

As I originally asked, please define them. It might be best for you to include a list.

quote:

If you don't think the Government has a duty to uphold human rights in the world, you are abandoning Locke, Jefferson and liberalism all together.

No I don't agree with this and I do not abandon liberalism all together. Government has a duty to protect and serve their countries people.

quote:

When forced to explain something to someone like a little child, those terms are the only I can use to help you to understand the theories.

No, you are doing this because you think states act like individuals.

quote:

But in a Kantian sense, through being modern it is inherently immoral.

But you think Article 1 is immoral. Being modern is not inherently immoral. Please explain when you much such blanket claims.

quote:

Although I fear that the lay reader confuses that with being realistic, I can use it.

Sigh... Notsojoey and I both have degrees in Political Science. We know what realism is.

quote:

When forced to explain something to someone like a little child, those terms are the only I can use to help you to understand the theories.

Sigh... Notsojoey and I both have degrees in Political Science. We disagree that states have the rights of individuals. States are not individuals. We understand the theories. Please get out of your ivory tower.

quote:

The rights that are inherent to any human solely by existing. Jefferson called them "unalienable rights."

Habeas Corpus is not one of those.

quote:

If you don't think the Government has a duty to uphold human rights in the world, you are abandoning Locke, Jefferson and liberalism all together.

I do, thus I am in favor of the Iraqi invasion. I guess you don't think we have that duty.

To clpo13. No, I never said that. I think all humans desevre human rights. I do not beleive that Habeas Corpus is a human right. I do not think that we have a duty to extend Habeas Corpus (a civil right granted to citizens) to non-citizens. We choose to extend it to legal aliens. I am fine with that. We choose not to extend it to terrorist. I am fine with that to.

Can anyone give me a list of "basic human rights"?

quote:

No, use the world realism

Although I fear that the lay reader confuses that with being realistic, I can use it.

quote:

You think Lincoln was a great president and it doesn't matter that he revoked Habaes Corpus.

"that does not excuse the act of revoking habeas corpus"

quote:

But explain how free trade facilitates oppression

I have already stated that companies have engaged in poor labor practices when not laws are not enforced. They have set a trend of paying off officials to see ensure that lack of enforcment.

http://lasolidarity.org/CAFTA_report/esp_CAFTA_monitoreo2.pdf

There is a pdf you can read.

quote:

First, please define human rights.

The rights that are inherent to any human solely by existing. Jefferson called them "unalienable rights."

quote:

Are you saying our constitution is wrong on the issue of revoking Habeas Corpus?

Yes.

quote:

Please make more sense in these "intellectual" accusation that my thoughts represent everything wrong in politics.

If you don't think the Government has a duty to uphold human rights in the world, you are abandoning Locke, Jefferson and liberalism all together. If you don't uphold human rights in foreign relations, you can't claim to be a force for good in the world (unless you are a fascist).

quote:

Once again, States are not people.

When forced to explain something to someone like a little child, those terms are the only I can use to help you to understand the theories.

quote:

As Bushsupporter asked, do you think the constitution is amoral?

Of course not. But in a Kantian sense, through being modern it is inherently immoral.

quote:

If you would prefer that I call you Machiavellian, rather than Hobbesian, I would be happy to accommodate.

No, use the world realism - not a phrase you made up to replace realism that is not used by anyone else.

quote:

We have the right to not facilitate their oppression.

Correct, we have the right to not facilitate their oppression. But explain how free trade facilitates oppression - I am looking for a specific action by the government to keep workers oppressed as a condition of free trade. Please refer to my previous post - you have not addressed the economic harm of stoping trade to a large number of nations while no one else does. You do realize China would not be traded with by your argument, don't you?

quote:

A legacy is made up of many good things and many bad things. You have to take it as a whole. As a whole, I think he was a greater force for good than for bad. While that does not excuse the act of revoking habeas corpus, it does excuse his legacy from being overshadowed by it.

Fair enough, we just disagree on this issue. You think Lincoln was a great president and it doesn't matter that he revoked Habaes Corpus. I think he was a great president and it does matter that revoked Habaes Corpus.

quote:

I don't know what constitutionality has to do with human rights? Maybe you could clarify.

First, please define human rights. Then I will attempt to address your question. Are you saying our constitution is wrong on the issue of revoking Habeas Corpus?

quote:

I think on that point alone you outline an excellent case for why your political wing serves more evil than good in the world.

Please make more sense in these "intellectual" accusation that my thoughts represent everything wrong in politics.

quote:

You have a right to exist, but if you kill someone, we recognize that you have forfeited that right.

Once again, States are not people. They are different actors who have completly different interests.

So States don't really have a right to exists, do they? They only have a right to exists if they follow your moral code, correct?

quote:

Once again, I don't see what constitutionality and morality have to do with one another.

As Bushsupporter asked, do you think the constitution is amoral?

quote:

I am sorry you feel that Hamilton and Jefferson were wrong.

Why? Do you think they were wrong about making a constitutional exception for slavery?

BS: correct me if I'm wrong, but you say that only certain people can have basic human rights?

Are the other people not human, then?

quote:

If you would prefer that I call you Machiavellian, rather than Hobbesian, I would be happy to accommodate.

No thank you. "American" or "right" would do as a fine way to address me.

I also see that you disagree with the framers of our founding and guiding document on the issue of Habeas Corpus. I could tell that as you discounted my entire post with one sentence. I am sorry you feel that Hamilton and Jefferson were wrong. I however do not. I know those guys were a lot smarter than me.

quote:

You extrapolation is wrong, pure and simple. You make a stretch to fit your argument when there is no grounds to make that stretch at all.

I did not reply to this earlier, so I will now. Realism as a IR model is nested in the ideas of many theorists, most prominently, Hobbes and Machiavelli. No one disputes this.

If you would prefer that I call you Machiavellian, rather than Hobbesian, I would be happy to accommodate.

quote:

You need to be realistic, there is nothing immoral with trading with another country - nothing whatsoever. If that country treats there workers differently than the USA does, that is what happens when countries have the right to exists (We would have no right to change their ways).

We make the choice to streamline trade with that country. We have the right to not facilitate their oppression.

quote:

How can you say his legacy isn't corrupted by revoking habeas corpus?

A legacy is made up of many good things and many bad things. You have to take it as a whole. As a whole, I think he was a greater force for good than for bad. While that does not excuse the act of revoking habeas corpus, it does excuse his legacy from being overshadowed by it.

quote:

Except for the fact that our Democratic Constitution says he had the right to do so.

I don't know what constitutionality has to do with human rights? Maybe you could clarify.

quote:

We have no duty to extend human rights.

I think on that point alone you outline an excellent case for why your political wing serves more evil than good in the world.

quote:

If a state has a right to exist, it has the right to govern itself. Thus you can not say tyranny has no right to exists.

You have a right to exist, but if you kill someone, we recognize that you have forfeited that right. A state can forfeit rights in such a manner. I don't know how many times I have to explain this.

quote:

Except in free trade, right?

We don't have to contribute to their behavior. Many countries have the choice to contribute or to not contribute. There is nothing aggressive about only signing economic treaties with nations that share our economic values.

quote:

So even with a world majority there is nothing that can be done to infringe on that countries right.

From above:

"You have a right to exist, but if you kill someone, we recognize that you have forfeited that right. A state can forfeit rights in such a manner. I don't know how many times I have to explain this."

quote:

In short, your thoughts on the Writ of Habeas Corpus are simply wrong.

Once again, I don't see what constitutionality and morality have to do with one another.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution says that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in the instance of a "rebellion or ivasion the public safety may require it." I consider the war on terror an invasion of the public safety (see September 11, 2001). I guess you don't.

There is debate over who has the right to suspend it as the Constitution does not specify. However, Lincoln was backed up by Congress when he suspended the writ. That makes your arguments against Lincoln invalid. That is unless you don't consider the Civil War a rebellion.

The writ has been suspended on 3 seperate occasions since the Civil Rebellion. In 1871 to fight the KKK, in the Phillipines in 1905 to fight the rebellion, and during WWII to fight the invasion. None of these were illegal or immoral. Do you disagree with the suspension during these instances?

The law provides that military prisoners may be issued a writ only in the dispute of jurisdiction. I hope you are not claiming that the Federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the enemy combatants held down at Club Gitmo. In fact, the recent Supreme Court case said nothing regarding the writ to be extended towards them.

In short, your thoughts on the Writ of Habeas Corpus are simply wrong.

quote:

We need to stand for what is right, whether it is profitable or not. There are innumerable ways to make money morally.

You need to be realistic, there is nothing immoral with trading with another country - nothing whatsoever. If that country treats there workers differently than the USA does, that is what happens when countries have the right to exists (We would have no right to change their ways).

Let's say there is something immoral, do you know how much it would hurt our economy to refuse to trade with countries that every other country trades with? The affects would be felt by the individual working Americans and government programs would be more underfunded than they currently are. What you are talking about is not just a few dollars, you are talking of hurting the american economy by trillions of dollars.

quote:

You mean civil right? I don't know what you mean.

No, I mean rights. You either have rights, or you don't. I'll rephrase: "You would rather have a President that violates the constitutional rights of Americans over a President that does not violate the conststitutional rights of Americans."

quote:

Of course his legacy isn't corrupted by such things when he freed the slaves.

How can you say his legacy isn't corrupted by revoking habeas corpus? You really out of whack on this. Did you means to say something else.

quote:

But Lincolns abandonment of Habeas Corpus is just as tyrannical as any other in principle.

Except for the fact that our Democratic Constitution says he had the right to do so. And the S