7 ms·

This is just "might makes right". It's not an ideology that anyone who wants to live in a country or a world that values individual liberty should desire. Cons

This is just "might makes right". It's not an ideology that anyone who wants to live in a country or a world that values individual liberty should desire. Consider how few hops it is between "it's ok to violate a country's sovereignty if it is small and powerless" and "it's ok to violate someone's 'rights' so long as they are powerless, unimportant, or poor".

rayiner 13y ago
Not really. There is a principled distinction between the two: people in other countries are not part of the same social pact and thus don't have rights. Its tribalism, sure, but tribalism has historically been pretty effective at maintaining different standards internally versus externally.
- westicle 13y ago
  Yeah, well maybe the people in MY state are OK, but those bastards one state over are fair game. And don't get me started about the neighbours across the road. Their tribe has no rights in my book.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The people one state over are part of the same compact (the Constitution) with you. A compact which, by the way, bars you from discriminating against them in commerce, which actually causes a lot of problems in practice. E.g. states that want to enact social welfare programs for their own people have a difficult time doing so at the state level, because of free rider effects (it is unconstitutional to require a citizen of another state to live in your state for say a year before applying for welfare benefits). Trying to get around the free rider effect creates increased demand for solutions at the federal level, which undermines federalism and state sovereignty. At the level of sovereign nations, similar pushes for extending rights across national boundaries creates pressure for trans-national governments. It's no accident that the tearing down of economic barriers between European states went hand-in-hand with the creation of trans-EU legislative and executive bodies. There is a lot of value to trans-national barriers that isn't immediately obvious, especially in a democracy.

rayiner 13y ago

Not really. There is a principled distinction between the two: people in other countries are not part of the same social pact and thus don't have rights. Its tribalism, sure, but tribalism has historically been pretty effective at maintaining different standards internally versus externally.

westicle 13y ago
Yeah, well maybe the people in MY state are OK, but those bastards one state over are fair game. And don't get me started about the neighbours across the road. Their tribe has no rights in my book.
- rayiner 13y ago
  The people one state over are part of the same compact (the Constitution) with you. A compact which, by the way, bars you from discriminating against them in commerce, which actually causes a lot of problems in practice. E.g. states that want to enact social welfare programs for their own people have a difficult time doing so at the state level, because of free rider effects (it is unconstitutional to require a citizen of another state to live in your state for say a year before applying for welfare benefits). Trying to get around the free rider effect creates increased demand for solutions at the federal level, which undermines federalism and state sovereignty. At the level of sovereign nations, similar pushes for extending rights across national boundaries creates pressure for trans-national governments. It's no accident that the tearing down of economic barriers between European states went hand-in-hand with the creation of trans-EU legislative and executive bodies. There is a lot of value to trans-national barriers that isn't immediately obvious, especially in a democracy.