TA1LGUNN3R wrote:So we've established that I have no right to self-determination in regards to what is perceived as concerning public safety. Never mind the details of whether this is true or not, but let's take it at face value. Let's take this discussion as a scaled version and apply it internationally.
I don't have the right to not wear a helmet or seat belt because it may have consequences on the psychological or financial burden of the community at large (or, alternately, I'm too stupid and therefore it's the responsibility of better educated persons to look out for me). So do we then have the right to enact legislation that concern countries that believe they may be autonomous, but really aren't? Are we obligated to protect these countries whose actions may affect us, regardless of their sovereignty?
Was the war on Iraq justified as one of its main goals was to bring democracy to the people? Or were we justified in threatening the safety of Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate so that they would trade with us, thereby increasing our financial security?
How far does this concern for public structural integrity extend? Could we theoretically start enacting legislation upon China as they've threatened (now surpassed) our financial status as number 1?
Wondering where we draw the lines here.
If the goal is to mitigate harm, then how do we does the government know which is the best means?
(assuming that's even the goal, which it isn't).