Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10405)	4/4/2001 4:41:05 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I will say this again. I feel I have no right to intrude by force (overt or covert) into the sovereign government of other nations. I would like to think WE (the US feel that way, but of course we don't). I feel that way because once you justify your own intrusion you justify the intrusion of others (others whose intrusion into your affairs you might not like). If a country has slavery, and it's people do not rise up and crush the government that allows it, and destroy the institution, then they "want" slavery. I use the term "want" loosely. I don't mean desire- I mean "allow to exist". South Africa "wanted" apartheid until it's citizens rose up an crushed it. Indians "wanted" occupation, until they rose up and threw the British out. That's what I mean. In the US we had slavery until we were willing to kill our own countrymen over the issue. Then it was crushed. It might have been crushed anyway, but it was crushed with blood. A strong majority in this country no longer "wanted" slavery. That's about as clear as I can make it. Should the French have come over and put an end to slavery for us? No, I don't think so. I think the US had every right to have slavery (even though I abhor it) and then it had every right to kill it's own citizens to stop slavery. The social contract changes, sometimes peacefully, sometimes not. But it makes a certain amount of sense, and gives a bit of security and stability, to allow countries to organize themselves as they see fit. It isn't always humanitarian- but I would argue that interference is often more bloody and less humanitarian. I prefer peaceful engagement in moral issues with other countries.