2006/10/11
O problema da Segurança Colectiva
"(...) The theoretical analogue of such a concert against "aggression" is held to be combating criminal action against individuals. A robs or murders B; the local police, appointed defenders of the right of person and property, leap to the defense of B and act to apprehend and punish A. In the same way, "peace-loving" nations are supposed to band together against "aggressor" nations or states. Hence, Harry Truman's otherwise mystifying insistence that the U.S. war against North Korea was not a war at all but a "police action."
The deep flaw in all this is that when A robs or murders B, there is a general agreement that A is in the wrong, and that he has indeed aggressed against the person and just property rights of B.
But when State A aggresses against the border of State B, often claiming that the border is unjust and the result of a previous aggression against country A decades before, how can we say a priori that State A is the aggressor and that we must dismiss its defense out of hand? Who says, and on what principle, that State B has the same moral right to all of its existing territory as individual B has to his life and property?
And how can the two aggressions be equated when our global democrats refuse to come up with any principles or criteria whatsoever: except the unsatisfactory and absurd call for a world State or blind reliance upon the boundary status quo at any given moment?
What, then, is the answer? What national boundaries can be considered as just?
In the first place, it must be recognized that there are no just national boundaries per se; that real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals. If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just.
National boundaries are only just insofar as they are based on voluntary consent and the property rights of their members or citizens. Just national boundaries are, then, at best derivative and not primary.
How much more is this true of existing State boundaries which are, in greater or lesser degree, based on coercive expropriation of private property, or on a mixture of that with voluntary consent! (...)
But wasn't the Wilsonian attempt to impose national self-determination and draw the map of Europe a disaster? And how! But the disaster was inevitable even assuming (incorrectly) good will on the part of Wilson and the Allies and ignoring the fact that national self-determination was a mask for their imperial ambitions.
For by its nature, national self-determination cannot be imposed from without, by a foreign government entity, be it the United States or some world League.The whole point of national self-determination is to get top-down coercive power out of the picture and, for the use of force to devolve from the larger entity to more genuine natural and voluntary national entities.
In short, to devolve power from the top downward. Imposing national self-determination from the outside makes matters worse and more coercive than ever. Moreover, getting the U.S. or other governments involved in every ethnic conflict throughout the globe maximizes, rather than minimizes, coercion, conflict, war, and mass murder.
It drags the United States, as the great isolationist scholar Charles A. Beard once put it, into "perpetual war for perpetual peace."
Referring back to political theory, since the nation-state has a monopoly of force in its territorial area, the one thing it must not do is ever try to exercise its force beyond its area, where it has no monopoly, because then a relatively peaceful "international anarchy" (where each State confines its power to its own geographical boundary) is replaced by an international Hobbesian chaos of war of all (governments) against all.
In short, given the existence of nation-states, they should (a) never exercise their power beyond their territorial area (a foreign policy of "isolationism"), and (b) maintain the right of secession of groups or entities within their territorial area.The right of secession, if fearlessly upheld, implies also the right of one or more villages to secede even from its own ethnic nation, or, even, as Ludwig von Mises affirmed in his Nation, State, and Economy, the right of secession by each individual.
If one deep flaw in the Wilsonian enterprise was its imposition of national self-determination from the outside, another was his total botch of redrawing the European map. It is difficult to believe that they could have done a worse job if the Versailles rulers had blindfolded themselves and put pins arbitrarily in a map of Europe to create new nations." Murray N. Rothbard
The deep flaw in all this is that when A robs or murders B, there is a general agreement that A is in the wrong, and that he has indeed aggressed against the person and just property rights of B.
But when State A aggresses against the border of State B, often claiming that the border is unjust and the result of a previous aggression against country A decades before, how can we say a priori that State A is the aggressor and that we must dismiss its defense out of hand? Who says, and on what principle, that State B has the same moral right to all of its existing territory as individual B has to his life and property?
And how can the two aggressions be equated when our global democrats refuse to come up with any principles or criteria whatsoever: except the unsatisfactory and absurd call for a world State or blind reliance upon the boundary status quo at any given moment?
What, then, is the answer? What national boundaries can be considered as just?
In the first place, it must be recognized that there are no just national boundaries per se; that real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals. If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just.
National boundaries are only just insofar as they are based on voluntary consent and the property rights of their members or citizens. Just national boundaries are, then, at best derivative and not primary.
How much more is this true of existing State boundaries which are, in greater or lesser degree, based on coercive expropriation of private property, or on a mixture of that with voluntary consent! (...)
But wasn't the Wilsonian attempt to impose national self-determination and draw the map of Europe a disaster? And how! But the disaster was inevitable even assuming (incorrectly) good will on the part of Wilson and the Allies and ignoring the fact that national self-determination was a mask for their imperial ambitions.
For by its nature, national self-determination cannot be imposed from without, by a foreign government entity, be it the United States or some world League.The whole point of national self-determination is to get top-down coercive power out of the picture and, for the use of force to devolve from the larger entity to more genuine natural and voluntary national entities.
In short, to devolve power from the top downward. Imposing national self-determination from the outside makes matters worse and more coercive than ever. Moreover, getting the U.S. or other governments involved in every ethnic conflict throughout the globe maximizes, rather than minimizes, coercion, conflict, war, and mass murder.
It drags the United States, as the great isolationist scholar Charles A. Beard once put it, into "perpetual war for perpetual peace."
Referring back to political theory, since the nation-state has a monopoly of force in its territorial area, the one thing it must not do is ever try to exercise its force beyond its area, where it has no monopoly, because then a relatively peaceful "international anarchy" (where each State confines its power to its own geographical boundary) is replaced by an international Hobbesian chaos of war of all (governments) against all.
In short, given the existence of nation-states, they should (a) never exercise their power beyond their territorial area (a foreign policy of "isolationism"), and (b) maintain the right of secession of groups or entities within their territorial area.The right of secession, if fearlessly upheld, implies also the right of one or more villages to secede even from its own ethnic nation, or, even, as Ludwig von Mises affirmed in his Nation, State, and Economy, the right of secession by each individual.
If one deep flaw in the Wilsonian enterprise was its imposition of national self-determination from the outside, another was his total botch of redrawing the European map. It is difficult to believe that they could have done a worse job if the Versailles rulers had blindfolded themselves and put pins arbitrarily in a map of Europe to create new nations." Murray N. Rothbard
// posted by CN @ 4:18 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
“What national boundaries can be considered as just?”
And WHO is to say what is just?
“that real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals.”
And WHO establishes what are the just property rights?
“If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just.”
And if a different group of fifty people considerer that the just property rights is theirs?
What then?
They go to war.
With politicians or without them, with states big or small, with laws or no laws.
That is Human History.
As soon as man began to be capable of accumulating goods and considerer that he had property rights over them, another man decided that those rights could be transferred to him (by trade, by force, by deception, by marriage or a mix of the previous).
Segurança colectiva é algo, cada vez mais longe de se alcançar.
Não consigo ver como é que baseando-se em direitos de propriedade justos a conseguiríamos atingir. O que é justo para uns, será sempre considerado injusto para outros que tentaram fazer valer a sua opinião.
Se, em vez de direitos, falássemos de deveres para com o resto da humanidade e para com o planeta. Deveres de partilhar e colaborar para que não houvesse tanto desiquilibrio entre o bem-estar de uns (poucos) e a miséria de outros(muitos). Para que os recursos fossem utilizados racionalmente e para beneficio geral e não só de pequenos grupos.
Mas isto, sou só eu a sonhar porque a qualidade do “material de trabalho”, do ser humano, deixa muito a desejar. Os nossos instintos básicos tribais e predatórios continuam a dominar a razão.
And WHO is to say what is just?
“that real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals.”
And WHO establishes what are the just property rights?
“If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just.”
And if a different group of fifty people considerer that the just property rights is theirs?
What then?
They go to war.
With politicians or without them, with states big or small, with laws or no laws.
That is Human History.
As soon as man began to be capable of accumulating goods and considerer that he had property rights over them, another man decided that those rights could be transferred to him (by trade, by force, by deception, by marriage or a mix of the previous).
Segurança colectiva é algo, cada vez mais longe de se alcançar.
Não consigo ver como é que baseando-se em direitos de propriedade justos a conseguiríamos atingir. O que é justo para uns, será sempre considerado injusto para outros que tentaram fazer valer a sua opinião.
Se, em vez de direitos, falássemos de deveres para com o resto da humanidade e para com o planeta. Deveres de partilhar e colaborar para que não houvesse tanto desiquilibrio entre o bem-estar de uns (poucos) e a miséria de outros(muitos). Para que os recursos fossem utilizados racionalmente e para beneficio geral e não só de pequenos grupos.
Mas isto, sou só eu a sonhar porque a qualidade do “material de trabalho”, do ser humano, deixa muito a desejar. Os nossos instintos básicos tribais e predatórios continuam a dominar a razão.
Correcção
considerado injusto para outros que tentaram fazer valer a sua opinião.
considerado injusto para outros que tentarão fazer valer a sua opinião.
considerado injusto para outros que tentaram fazer valer a sua opinião.
considerado injusto para outros que tentarão fazer valer a sua opinião.
"Não consigo ver como é que baseando-se em direitos de propriedade justos a conseguiríamos atingir. O que é justo para uns, será sempre considerado injusto para outros que tentaram fazer valer a sua opinião."
Nas relações entre Estados existe pouco de Justo/Injusto, apenas disputas de Status Quo de dominios politicos.
Já nas relaçoes civis e tendo em conta a propredade justamente adquirida (aquisição original ou troca) é possivel fazer esse julgamento.
Nas relações entre Estados existe pouco de Justo/Injusto, apenas disputas de Status Quo de dominios politicos.
Já nas relaçoes civis e tendo em conta a propredade justamente adquirida (aquisição original ou troca) é possivel fazer esse julgamento.
"Já nas relaçoes civis e tendo em conta a propredade justamente adquirida (aquisição original ou troca) é possivel fazer esse julgamento. "
O que me preocupa é a diferença entre a percentagem de pessoas que têem capacidade para adquirir justamente propriedade e aquelas que nem as propriedades básicas podem adquirir (More than 850 million are still hungry - some 18 million more than in 1996).
Um desequilibrio que, a nível de nações, já provocou situações de "insegurança colectiva" e que neste momento, com a globalização, está já a ter consequências mais alargadas geogràficamente.
A "invasão" da Europa por massas de população com fome, doente e que vem encontrar países, supostamente ricos, onde o desemprego e o endividamento produz uma classe média cada mais empobrecida irá resultar em quê?
Post a Comment
O que me preocupa é a diferença entre a percentagem de pessoas que têem capacidade para adquirir justamente propriedade e aquelas que nem as propriedades básicas podem adquirir (More than 850 million are still hungry - some 18 million more than in 1996).
Um desequilibrio que, a nível de nações, já provocou situações de "insegurança colectiva" e que neste momento, com a globalização, está já a ter consequências mais alargadas geogràficamente.
A "invasão" da Europa por massas de população com fome, doente e que vem encontrar países, supostamente ricos, onde o desemprego e o endividamento produz uma classe média cada mais empobrecida irá resultar em quê?
<< Home
