Posted on 09/17/2014 5:27:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
“Perhaps we should look for a principle which guides our thinking independent of whether we approve or disapprove of the politics of “the people.” But that is not so easy because, for example, I am opposed to respecting the democratically determined majority interests of radical Islamists. I freely admit to jettisoning all fidelity to democracy under those circumstances.”
The problem with this line of thinking is that it doesn’t simply denigrate the rights of those who you oppose having them, it denigrates the very concept of rights altogether.
For example, say we posit that only civilized responsible people have a right to self-determination. What are the consequences of such an assertion?
First, we would not be able to say such a right was universal, derived from our Creator, unless we also held that civilized and uncivilized people had separate Creators. If they had separate Creators, then the logical consequence is that civilization is immutable, and an uncivilized people could never become civilized. Observation proves that false, therefore the assertion is contradictory and cannot be true.
Alternatively, we could agree that both uncivilized and civilized people have the same Creator, but then we would have to conclude that the right to self-determination could not derive from said Creator. Necessarily, it would then have to derive from some other, lesser source, and then the right would not be inherent and undeniable. This is especially problematic regarding this right, because the next highest source one can imagine would be a sovereign ruler or government, and if such a source could grant or remove the right to self-determination, then the right would be quite worthless.
So, clearly, we can’t deny a right to others simply because they might not exercise that right responsibly, otherwise we are actually denying the right to ourselves as well. I cannot say that, just because someone might go around insulting people’s mothers, that they do not have the right to free speech, otherwise the right to free speech is non-existent, as we all could potentially commit such an abuse. No, if we are to have rights, we must accept the potential negative consequences of others exercising those rights as well.
My objection to Islamicists is that to countenance democracy which puts them in power is to institutionalize one man, one vote, one time which implies the death of civilized order. Conservatives are nothing if not in favor of civilized order. My argument is primitive, Islamicists place themselves beyond the pael by their uncivilized behavior. We are not philosopher kings we are conservatives grappling with the very unpleasant realities of a brutal philosophy which kills democracy. I submit that Islamist nationstates represent an existential threat to our own nation and, worse, to our civilization.
We have a philosophy of government embattled at home and besieged abroad possessed of principles which are precious to us and which we must seek always to preserve lest we lose our souls. But it does no good to feel self-righteous only to lose one's head into the bargain.
That is the great challenge of pursuing a conservative life-to strike the balance between practical reality and principle.
If the people of Scotland who favor independence are voting to depart to protect their rights as individuals (which I doubt), I am with them. If they are voting merely to be governed by people arbitrarily born in Scotland rather than by people arbitrarily born in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I see no moral justification for that, especially if the new Scottish government will use that power to further violate their rights (which is what I think will happen).
The sovereign is a means, not an end. Always.
The Scottish plebiscite is far from violent, of course, although one reads accounts of intimidation of independence opponents, much like what happened to people who gave to the anti-gay marriage initiative in CA. But the impetus for Scottish independence seems absurd to me, driven significantly by a desire to put SNP types in charge of government largesse.
As to "Suppose the South said, as a price of leaving the union we are willing to emancipate all slaves? Or consider the converse, should the union have compensated slaveholders for the loss of their property?," would not either of those outcomes have been better than what actually transpired? As I understand it many abolitionists were opposed to the second option on principle, and excessive devotion to principle can get a lot of people killed. So the principle had better be a good one.
“If the people of Scotland who favor independence are voting to depart to protect their rights as individuals (which I doubt), I am with them. If they are voting merely to be governed by people arbitrarily born in Scotland rather than by people arbitrarily born in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I see no moral justification for that, especially if the new Scottish government will use that power to further violate their rights (which is what I think will happen).”
The problem is, you cannot assert a right that is dependent on the motivations or results of the exercise of that right, or it is no right at all. For example, if you only agree that people who will determine to have a federated republic have a right to self-determination, then what you are agreeing with is not a right, but some sort of neutered privilege that you have deemed to grant them.
I think I began by saying in fact there is no such right to change the sovereign, no collective right of "self-determination." Indeed, I have worked very hard so far to avoid talking about the "rights" of collectives. (And be mindful of asserting that a right, especially a fictional collective one, is an absolute thing. How much misery has been brought about by such claims!) There is an individual right of individual resistance to an unjust sovereign, but that is all. If enough individuals resist, the sovereign will change. If they are really fighting for their rights, the amount of justice in this tragic world will happily increase. This is, I hope, the story of the American Revolution.
Said differently, there is no right to change the sovereign just because some fraction of people under its jurisdiction wants a different sovereign. The change in sovereignty must be grounded in something more fundamental.
“I think I began by saying in fact there is no such right to change the sovereign, no collective right of “self-determination.””
Then we really have no common grounds on which we could ever come to an agreement. What you are calling a “fictitious right” is foundational to the American experiment, and a well recognized principle of international law. Without it, we are all traitors to the crown of England and deserve to be hanged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.