Regimes, legitimacy, and humanism

As I've stated before, I am a humanist. This gives me a premise from which to reason about... oh, anything of real importance. for example, foreign policy.

But before I detail my views on foreign policy, I need to define some more terms.

The United States is often bitterly attacked for meddling in the affairs of other nations. On what grounds? On shifting grounds. I could refute their complaints, but that would just lead us down the rabbit hole. So let's take it from another angle. Just what stance toward other nations *would* be reasonable?

It depends on what particular other nation you're talking about. For you see, all nations are not equal. Not even close.

What is a nation? In some contexts, the word denotes a tribe or ethnic group. Well, I'll talk about tribalism in some other article. These days the controversy mostly concerns our attacking or deposing "the government of a sovereign state."

Well, what's so special about the government of a sovereign state? The anarchists would say, nothing. But I reject anarchism. I simply don't see it as in humanity's best interests, because it fails to allow for the darker side of human nature. Outside of Utopian fantasies, a state of anarchy is a very unpleasant one, generally ending in an equally unpleasant tyranny. No, thank you.

Remember my humanist principle. That is good which serves human needs and interests. A sovereignty is good to the extend that it serves humanity, and bad to the extent that is it harms humanity. And it should be plainly obvious that not all sovereign governments are equal in this regard.

Let's look at an example. Some very silly - or perhaps disingenuous - people ask, rhetorically, "isn't it hypocritical to deny Iran nuclear weapons when the United States has nuclear weapons?" No, it isn't. And here's why. The united States is a democratic republic. It has popular sovereignty. Well, maybe you don't care for it personally, but it's popular enough. Lots of people here like democracy. Iran does not have popular sovereignty... yet. The people of Iran are not seeking nuclear weapons for defend themselves. An Iranian person named Ahmadinejad is seeking nuclear weapons so he can wipe Israel off the map and start Armageddon.

See the difference? No? Well, never mind.

Anyway, I really don't think the present regime of Iran having a nuclear program is in the best interest of humanity.

So, where's the dividing line? I think history has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that popular sovereignty is better than brute force, that the rule of law is better than the rule of raw power, and that a free society is more likely to be prosperous and peaceful than is an unfree society. A democratic republic, with the rule of law and human rights, such as we have in the West, is a legitimate sovereignty, to be prized above all else. Anything less than this, is less legitimate. A thugocracy, such as the former Ba'athist empire of Saddam Hussein, has no legitimacy or value at all. A murderous dictator has no rights in a humanist system. None at all. It's simply a matter of when we get around to exterminating him. Likewise Kim Kong Il. Likewise the Janjaweed. Likewise the countless tribal warlords in Africa. Likewise Fidel Castro. If they won't grant their subjects and victims basic human rights, why should we have the slightest consideration for them?

Now, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that we should go around toppling the thugocracies of the world. At least, it doesn't necessarily follow from *only* this. More on that in a later post. For now, let's just say this: if we want to remove one of these bastards from power, for any reason, there is no question of the right to do so. You may object on other grounds, but not on grounds of the rights of sovereign nations. From a humanist perspective, that simply doesn't apply.


Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)