Critique of "The Slavery of International Rights"
Entry posted by Kzoppistan
268 views
*I was moving some articles around and found this one tucked away. Thought I'd share it. It's old, Zenith is disbanded, SNOW is long gone, and I now know who Vladimir is. 
__________________________________________________
Critique of "The Slavery of International Rights"
By Kzoppistan, originally posted in the Zenith Debating Chamber on February 21st, 2009. Formatting and minor editing by Ferrous
The following is a critique on "The Slavery of International Rights," an essay by Vladimir.
This article falls short of convincing me that international rights should not exist. Whether or not I feel international rights should exist is a different story, but this article fails to convince me of anything except the inability of the author to argue a stance, despite the heavy "intellectualization" of the wordage. The author attacks the position of the Globalists and attempts to knock flat their assertions by an examination of the components of "rights". However, the author falls victim to the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam, or simply argument to logic (This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition.) He may have scored several points against the Globalists if those really were their points that they put forth, but for the case against international rights he's just knocking down straw men. A careful examination of his refutation shows that his arguments are, at best, limited in scope.
Before that look, though, I'd like to point out that since the article details the inter-player relationship the author can be forgiven for thinking "inside the box" because, when you take a long view of it, there already is an international body of rights and enforcement, the Admin.
One of the major points of contention I have with this article is the lack of clarification of what rights the author is talking about.
Onward.
"The idealistic conception that the Globalists – the supporters of international rights – have of the international arena is undoubtedly an attractive one at first glance, and it is easy to see why so many are sucked into its well-meaning simplicity. Indeed, on the face of it international rights are difficult to argue against; after all, who could possibly deny someone their freedom? However, this idealism is based on the mistaken premise that international rights are negative – that they only require others to refrain from interfering..."
This statement can be proven false by simple logic. If I am a person who supports international rights, then that makes me a Globalist. However, that does not necessarily make me some one who believes that international rights are negative (as in, they only require others to refrain from interfering). What if I believed that a world governing body should be imposed to enforce international rights? What then? (the end result of that intention is what he decries at the end of the article, but the points he provides to get to that final argument are weak, thus the reason of this critique.)
"The basis of the anti-Globalist argument is the premise that an international body is required to enforce international rights if they are truly to exist."
Then that premise is false. An international body doesn't have to be created to enforce an international law. By the author's definition: "Rights have two prerequisites in order for them to exist: a law in support of them (whether by written legislation or precedent) and a body capable and willing to enforce that law." Neither of those stipulate that an international body must be the enforcing party. Most enforcement of international laws, such as they oft written "no spying" law, is done by the offended party.
Another example:
"Likewise, if one creates an alliance, there is absolutely nothing to prevent another from immediately destroying it, and so no alliance can be said to have a right to existence."
What the author fails to consider is the fluid nature of rights. Rights are formal rules of entitlement not only created by those with the power to enforce them but also by consensus. (Which we'll examine in a moment) What if, in the example above, that alliance applies for protection from a larger partner. Then it certainly has the right to exist as long as the protecting partner is strong enough to deflect an attacker.
"However, since there has never been a hegemonic bloc either capable or willing to enforce international laws, it is correct to say that there are not, and have never been, international rights."
That statement is incorrect by the point above about spying.
"As should become increasingly clear to the reader at this point, what international rights truly require, and therefore what they inherently symbolise, is an international military dictatorship. The hegemonic bloc would need to claim sovereignty over the world, forcing all nations, alliances and blocs under its domain; thus completely destroying their sovereignty."
Is that not the point? If not, then why was there conflict built into the system? What is the difference between one nation imposing their will by force-of-arms on another nation, and one bloc forcing their will on the rest of the world?
"ConclusionIt is clear when going through the concrete logical motions that are required for international rights to exist that they are not the route to freedom and liberty on Planet Bob, as the idealistic Globalists would have us believe. Instead they are the basis of the slow, long walk to global slavery, where the international arena is overseen by a select few who, through military hegemony, have declared themselves legislative, police, judge, jury and executioner. Is this the world we seek to aspire to?"
Yes. For many, who ever wields complete control over the rest could be considered the "winner" of the game. For those who just want to develop their nations to the fullest can do so within the protection of an alliance.
Ironically, both the Globalists and the author are wrong for the same reason but by different routes of reasoning. The Globalists contend that there should be international rights, like the right to existence- which would make it illegal for one nation to attack another. But that removes the risk factor and is contrary to a major factor of the game. Besides, there already is the right to exist without being attacked, it's called peace mode (if one doesn't want to incur the penalties of existing in peace mode, they have to entertain a little bit of risk, kinda like life. Don't like it? Play a different game. Or enforce your will in this one.) On the other hand, the ultimate argument of the author, despite all the blah-blah above it, is that the method to enforce those rights would make some one an imperialistic a-hole. That is also messed up because enforcing your will upon another is, again, a major feature of the game. To simplify, the Globalists say "Don't do that" and the author says "You shouldn't tell other people what to do" which inherently contradicts itself.
As a counter point to the "against the point of the game" argument (yes, I know, I'm arguing both sides 
, could be, "the game is what you make it." If all the major powers agreed and enforced a rule that everyone should buy 10 tanks and then decommission them every Tuesday, well, that's the game. Despite the designer's intentions.
Some of the better stances to take involve a middle-of-the-road approach. Let's take two alternatives to the dictatorial bloc the author provided. One in reality and one hypothetical.
Both are international rules of consensus.
The first involves the SNOW treaty. While it is, in essence, an economic treaty, it also serves as a bloc of power and protection. Since it spans several alliances, that constitutes international, if not global. When an alliance joins, they receive the right to not be attack by other signatories. If they are, the bloc, and particularly TOOL, can punish the perpetrators. This is right by consensus. If some one doesn't agree to that charter, they don't have to join.
Let's take a hypothetical example. Let's call it the "Hammer of Ice". If all the major alliances and nations on the white sphere can come to an agreement to not attack one another and pass the responsibility of enforcing that agreement onto the alliance who holds the senatorial position then you will have a extraordinary large bloc of power and rights. If the agreement to rotate the senate position through a roster of alliances, (passing the Hammer of Ice) then it is not an elite few that enforce those rights but rather the whole white sphere. Rights by consensus, law, and enforceability. Now, if there was a person on the white sphere who did not agree to those rights and refused to move spheres, is that the tyranny of the majority over the minority? Of course, but that is also no different from the tyranny of the strong over the weak, the crux of the game warfare mechanic and life itself.
So in conclusion, I think this case could have been much better argued by pointing out the undesirability of universal rights because they conflict with the nature of the game, rather than all the other hoo-ha this guy said.
8 Comments
Recommended Comments