# Humanitarian Realpolitik **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338 "2015-07-27T18:45:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2015, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/41 "2015-08-02T21:10:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You don’t have to colonize to be imperialist. Teddy Roosevelt was definitely an imperialist president. It was the thing to do back then. I agree with you about TR. But the reason I dont consider the USA an imperialistic power is that we never tried to accumulate colonies. We werent involved in the race to colonize Africa. We never grabbed a piece of China. We helped keep colonialism out of the New World post the Manefest Destiny. We were able to expand within North America. We didnt try to colonize the Native peoples; we just absorbed them and their land. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/42 "2015-08-03T01:07:43Z")
Like other religions, democratic evangelism is self serving and pretty goofy. Why would people raised in a completely different culture believe or want what we do? Just try to reverse the logic. Deep inside every American is a lost soul yearning for the social harmony of Confucianism. If you don’t think so it’s because you’ve been brainwashed and led astray by centuries of Western propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/43 "2015-08-03T01:30:27Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I agree with you about TR. But the reason I dont consider the USA an imperialistic power is that we never tried to accumulate colonies. We werent involved in the race to colonize Africa. We never grabbed a piece of China. We helped keep colonialism out of the New World post the Manefest Destiny. We were able to expand within North America. We didnt try to colonize the Native peoples; we just absorbed them and their land. We may not have tried to colonize Latin America outright, but we sure as fuck installed our own puppet governments. It’s known as “neo-colonialism”. But that’s probably for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/44 "2015-08-03T01:58:17Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Any thoughts? Can you name a single dictator now ruling whom the U.S. should be concerned, for humanitarian reasons, to keep in power? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/45 "2015-08-03T02:00:03Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > I agree with you about TR. But the reason I dont consider the USA an imperialistic power is that we never tried to accumulate colonies. See the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and, yes, Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![Construct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Construct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Construct)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/46 "2015-08-03T03:08:34Z")
> [@Hiker](#): > > To some extent that is true. Terms like “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong”, “ethical” and “unethical” are born out of convention, not nature. Before there were societies those terms did not exist. But does that mean they are insignificant? There is a reason why societies - \*all \*societies - have invented those terms and live by them. Otherwise they would be entirely unable to function. Societies didn’t invent morality – evolved would be a better term. Groups of humans who wound up with some form of morality (whether due to founder effect, genetic drift or whatnot) had higher levels of intra-group trust and consequently outcompeted humans without morality. > [@](#): > > You will argue now that the definition of what exactly is “good” and “bad” varies from one society to the next. That much is true, at least to an extent. Furthermore your point seems to be that people outside one society should strictly refrain from interfering with the values of that society. Here we disagree. You seem to be presupposing that all humans value the things that you do, but that is not necessarily so. Take the pre-conquest Aztecs, for example. Literally everyone in this society valued human sacrifice as a necessary act to appease the gods and forestall the end of the world. Would you help this society achieve their values, which were more widespread and deeply believed by Aztecs than _any_ value held by modern-day Americans? > [@](#): > > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which you consider to be a “travesty” has been introduced in 1948 under the impression of the events during world war two, an event that made it quite clear that the international community cannot and must not always leave a society to its own devices based on the creed of non-interference. The UDHR is a non-binding feel good agreement promoted by a penniless and impotent organization. It isn’t and hasn’t prevented genocide. Do you agree that some, if not nearly all, of the rights expressed are culturally dependent? > [@](#): > > The UDHR has been shaped by western authors and you are not the first to critisize it as being “western” in content. Debating the content is one thing - saying that there should not be such a thing as universal human rights is quite another. Again, does a savage living in the rainforest hunting rodents have a right to join a trade union? Does he have a right not to murdered by a stronger tribe? If rights are dependent on government, and he has no government, he has no rights at all. > [@](#): > > All rights that go beyond the right of the strongest depend on some form of government. That is not a “Western” thing. Then rights cease to exist when government ceases to exist, and supporting dictatorship is plainly to the best way to further ‘human rights’. > [@](#): > > Where do you get that “clearly are” from? Sure - if you ask the current ruling class, they will tell you to leave them alone. “Everything is fine - we are living according to the values of our society here. Do not meddle.” If you ask the people under their thumb, they might sing a different tune. > > But I will answer your question: If a country would be best served by a dictatorship, I would support it. I just do not believe that such a country exists. Your western point of view fails you again; you presuppose that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, an inherently Lockean viewpoint not shared by people from other cultures. As specific examples, Syria and Libya are worse places to live now than they were 10 years ago. Egypt promptly reverted from a democracy to a military dictatorship, and is in fact a more free and Western place than it would have been otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/47 "2015-08-03T03:22:22Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > Societies didn’t invent morality – evolved would be a better term. Groups of humans who wound up with some form of morality (whether due to founder effect, genetic drift or whatnot) had higher levels of intra-group trust and consequently outcompeted humans without morality.You seem to be presupposing that all humans value the things that you do, but that is not necessarily so. Take the pre-conquest Aztecs, for example. Literally everyone in this society valued human sacrifice as a necessary act to appease the gods and forestall the end of the world. Would you help this society achieve their values, which were more widespread and deeply believed by Aztecs than _any_ value held by modern-day Americans?The UDHR is a non-binding feel good agreement promoted by a penniless and impotent organization. It isn’t and hasn’t prevented genocide. Do you agree that some, if not nearly all, of the rights expressed are culturally dependent?Again, does a savage living in the rainforest hunting rodents have a right to join a trade union? Does he have a right not to murdered by a stronger tribe? If rights are dependent on government, and he has no government, he has no rights at all.Then rights cease to exist when government ceases to exist, and supporting dictatorship is plainly to the best way to further ‘human rights’.Your western point of view fails you again; you presuppose that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, an inherently Lockean viewpoint not shared by people from other cultures. As specific examples, Syria and Libya are worse places to live now than they were 10 years ago. Egypt promptly reverted from a democracy to a military dictatorship, and is in fact a more free and Western place than it would have been otherwise. The East Slavic world is probably an even better example than the Middle East of the failure of democracy (in that case, since 1991 or so). ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/48 "2015-08-03T03:29:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and, yes, Cuba. They were spoils of war from the Spanish in 1898…just about the end of the colonial period. If Cuba and PR had been english speaking they would probably be a couple of the 52 states. We didnt treat them like the British and the French or the Spanish treated their colonies. I still claim that we werent an imperial power in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/49 "2015-08-03T03:44:47Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > They were spoils of war from the Spanish in 1898…just about the end of the colonial period. If Cuba and PR had been english speaking they would probably be a couple of the 52 states. We didnt treat them like the British and the French or the Spanish treated their colonies. I still claim that we werent an imperial power in any meaningful way. Most of Central America would disagree. (As I said, look up the United Fruit Company) ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/50 "2015-08-03T04:01:42Z")
> [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > The East Slavic world is probably an even better example than the Middle East of the failure of democracy (in that case, since 1991 or so). While the western Slavic world has had a far better experience. ---
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/51 "2015-08-03T05:20:45Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > While the western Slavic world has had a far better experience. That’s true. (West Slavs in this context = Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia). I’m not sure quite why the difference, but those countries do have longstanding historical ties to the west- at various times they were part of Prussia and Austria- and they are a lot more similar to western Europe than the eastern Slavic countries are. Those countries also of course experienced communism as something imposed by a hostile foreign nation, unlike Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan, so it’s unsurprising to me they would have less nostalgia. ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/52 "2015-08-03T10:29:03Z")
> [@Construct](#): > > Societies didn’t invent morality – evolved would be a better term. Groups of humans who wound up with some form of morality (whether due to founder effect, genetic drift or whatnot) had higher levels of intra-group trust and consequently outcompeted humans without morality. Yes, I agree that this is more or less how societies came to adopt the concept of morality. So while morality is not “natural” it does serve a meaningful purpose and it makes sense for societies to evaluate a situation in terms of morality. > [@Construct](#): > > You seem to be presupposing that all humans value the things that you do, but that is not necessarily so. Take the pre-conquest Aztecs, for example. Literally everyone in this society valued human sacrifice as a necessary act to appease the gods and forestall the end of the world. Would you help this society achieve their values, which were more widespread and deeply believed by Aztecs than _any_ value held by modern-day Americans? I do not presuppose that all humans share exactly the same values that I do. I do indeed presuppose that they all share \*some \*of these values. Am I wrong to assume that the Aztecs in your example were not happy to see their culture extinguished by the Spanish? On what basis do we condemn the Spanish conquest, if there is no universal code of framework? Do you propose an “all is fair” attitude? The point I am trying to make is that mankind as a whole represents a form of society. We interact, so there needs to be a code of conduct among us that governs how we interact. The universality of human rights is by no means a “Western” idea, even though certain specific rights may be. > [@Construct](#): > > The UDHR is a non-binding feel good agreement promoted by a penniless and impotent organization. It isn’t and hasn’t prevented genocide. Do you agree that some, if not nearly all, of the rights expressed are culturally dependent?Again, does a savage living in the rainforest hunting rodents have a right to join a trade union? Does he have a right not to murdered by a stronger tribe? What is your complaint about the UDHR here? Are you saying the problem is that it is non-binding and that the UN does not have the power to enforce it? To reject a document that condemns genocide on the basis that it has not prevented genocide is unreasonable. By the same logic you could ask to abandon a law that outlaws burglary, because it has been around for so long and burglary still happens. Please clarify your position here: Should there be a universally applicable code of human rights or not? You seem pretty hung up on Article 23, specifically paragraph 4 - the right to form or join a trade union. So let’s have a look at the rest of that article, shall we? > [@](#): > > **Article 23.** > > ``` > (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. > (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. > (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. > > ``` To me this seems like a honest attempt to provide a guideline for societies on how to shape their working environment. If you find fault with it, because you think it too “Western”, I challenge you to come up with a more universally applicable definition. Unless you prefer to dodge the challenge by asserting that there cannot or should not be an universal definition. In that case I ask you to make a convincing argument why that assertion should be accepted. > [@Construct](#): > > If rights are dependent on government, and he has no government, he has no rights at all.Then rights cease to exist when government ceases to exist, and supporting dictatorship is plainly to the best way to further ‘human rights’. How on earth do you get from “The protection of rights requires government.” to “Dicatorship is the best way to protect rights.”? > [@Construct](#): > > Your western point of view fails you again; you presuppose that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, an inherently Lockean viewpoint not shared by people from other cultures. As specific examples, Syria and Libya are worse places to live now than they were 10 years ago. Egypt promptly reverted from a democracy to a military dictatorship, and is in fact a more free and Western place than it would have been otherwise. With all due respect, you do not get to decide what viewpoints people from other cultures share any more than I do. You keep presenting Lybia and Syria as evidence for your claim that dictatorship is more beneficial to the people than liberal democracy is. But neither of the two countries has a liberal democracy, do they? You have two countries with quite similar developments. A decade long dictatorship that has bred enough unrest to culminate in violent revolt. The system is inherently flawed. I do not claim that the situation that Lybia or Syria are in now is in any way desirable. But to jump from that observation to the claim that dictatorship \*is \*desirable displays a very near sighted understanding of political development. Dictatorship is an outdated model of government just as feudal monarchy is. I am sure that after the French Revolution you would have looked at the mess and said “serves them right, should have kept their king”. Many others did too, and it took the French a long time to eventually come out on top. But you cannot have a development, if you just look at the status quo and refuse to change things. Over the last half century we have seen more countries replace some form of dictatorship with democracy than you claim. You really think that people in Spain, Chile, Indonesia, Poland or South Africa have come out worse for it? No one claims that democracy is easy. Dictatorship is. But easy does not equal good. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/53 "2015-08-04T02:06:00Z")
If dictatorship is so great, why did Libya and Syria descend into chaos when the dictatorship was overthrown, or partially overthrown? Why didn’t they peacefully choose a new dictator? Because of course you can’t peacefully choose a new dictator, because the old dictator won’t allow it. And the dictator of course cannot allow the formation of power centers, or popular figures that are not under their direct control. The dictator has to centralize everything to his benefit, that’s how he remains dictator. And that means there is no method for petitioning for a redress of grievances, the dictator cannot allow that. There can be no civil society outside the dictatorship, no successors waiting in the wings, because the dictator’s successor is the perfect person to overthrow the current dictator. And so with the end of the dictator, we either have a scramble that results in a new dictator quickly seizing the existing reins of power, or a civil war if no figure or faction is able to establish absolute power. And the civil war rages on until enough people are dead that one faction and one leader eventually establishes control over the exhausted country, and the cycle begins anew. We can choose any method of political-social-economic organization we want, but we’re forced to deal with the necessary consequences of our system. You can decide you don’t want to eat your vegetables, and you don’t have to, but you can’t decide not to get scurvy afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338/54 "2015-08-04T19:10:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > If dictatorship is so great, why did Libya and Syria descend into chaos when the dictatorship was overthrown, or partially overthrown? The logic of your post was reasonable enough, but this question struck me as odd. Often if you take something good away something bad will happen. I’m sure you can think of numerous examples. As noted elsewhere, this is often the argument dictators use, that they’re bringing order to the chaos. It’s not like things are so great when democracies fail or are overthrown. Failed states in general aren’t fun. Maybe democracies will be better for a time due to existing institutions, but they need the life support of civil society to exist. Democracies also aren’t generally fond of new power structures forming inside their borders. That’s how civil wars start. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/humanitarian-realpolitik/726338.md?page=2)