China says activist broke his own neck

[Diamond]

How is the reform to Democracy doing in Russia?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not so well I must say.

[Judge Hades]

I'm kinda curious about you, Hades.  On one hand, you strike me as someone who wants the US to be isolationist - ie not to meddle in the affairs of other nations, and yet on the other you appear to be a hardened moralist who wants to see economic sanctions, which are most definitely the instrument of US neo-colonialist intervention, being implemented against authoritarian regimes.  I understand the whole "we shouldn't do business with bad governments" angle, but you do understand that a sanction on the part of the US is not merely a hands-off approach for us, but an aggressive policy of containment, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The way I see it is that if a country does not hold the same values of human life and freedom we should simply have nothing to do with them. We don't interfere with the workings of their government or people, we simply just won't deal with them at all. If they change their ways we go back and start have relations again, however we should not invade another country or use military force in a situation unless there is a clear and present danger against the United States citizenry on U.S. soil.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Dark Moth]

Instead of doing what would be right and ending trade and diplomatic relations with that government we give them favored trade status.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before you go off saying that, go through all your neighborhood stores and look to see how many products have "Made in China" printed on them.

[Judge Hades]

I do so I don't buy them. I will not buy anything from China if I can help it and I do not buy from businesses who predominantly sell Chinese goods, like Wal Mart.

[Dark Moth]

Good for you. But that's not the point. The point is, the U.S. heavily relies on China for a lot of products. Even back then, to simply end all trade relations with China would put tremendous strain on the U.S. economy and probably wouldn't do much good anyway in the long run. So while it might be able to be done, the point is it's just plain unrealistic to think our government would just stop trading altogether with a country that gives us so much of our goods.

[Judge Hades]

In the short run the US economy will suffer for it but in the long run we would have overcome it and the economy would be back on track. Also, tell me this. What is more important, human rights or a full belly?

 

I pick human rights.

[alanschu]

Heh, human rights only come when people have a full belly.

 

When people are starving to death, little things like human rights become a second thought to that little thing known as survival.

[Judge Hades]

Survival is meaningless if it comes at the cost of dehumanizing another.

[alanschu]

Look around at reality Hades.

 

The places that have problems with human rights typically aren't the places that have basic needs being met.

 

If people are starving to death and not having their basic needs met, they aren't going to be too concerned with their own human rights, or the human rights of another person. They're going to be concerned with living. Maybe you would condemn yourself to death in this case, but I doubt it.

 

It doesn't matter if you think survival is meaningless if it comes at the cost of dehumanizing another. It's not the way the world works. It's easy to tell people to not worry about their own survival, when you don't have to worry about your survival either.

 

You might as well have just said "Let them eat cake."

[Walsingham]

I have to say that Alanschu has a point. BUt then I don't see this as that kind of trade off. You don't have to sacrifice all cheap goods. There are lots of struggling economies who would love to make your - I mean OUR - cheap crud. Take the investment etc.