From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Aug 30 2003 - 14:48:27 MDT
On Friday 29 August 2003 23:36, Spike wrote:
> Spike wrote:
> > There is a woman in Nigeria who may be stoned to death
> > for extramarital copulation...
> > Should we not rush in there and topple the "government"
> > that would carry out such an reprehensible act?
>
> No, but I am sure you already thought that.
>
> - samantha
>
>
> On the contrary, I see this planet as entering
> an era where humanity may in fact intervene against
> any nonnuclear government to put a stop to basic human
> rights violations, such as this blatant example.
>
So you believe it is right and reasonable to have a rule of thumb that we will
go in and impose our will, because of course we know best, on any supposedly
soevereign nation that does anything at any scale that we find offensive?
With the one caveat being that the nation we would impose our will upon
cannot adequately defend itself against us? Really?
So Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and so on had the right idea - put all
the world under one authority? This supposed right to intervene anywhere
and everywhere that you would use today for a human rights violation, what
would stop it being used tomorrow to enforce anything at all that the nuclear
haves might consider advantageous to them? On what principles would some
things that we know better about be separated out from others as actionable
offenses?
When the US becomes unlivable for extropic values where will you go where you
may carry on your work and your live with less interference? Will you be of
the same opinion when it is you and what you believe in that has the sword of
anywhere-anytime force over your head?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 30 2003 - 14:58:51 MDT