(leader of all humanity, by definition?)
Most people seem to take the concept of the sovereignty of nations by faith. Otherwise, we might all as well listen to what the Chinese and Indian presidents have to say: after all, these two nations alone contain the majority of the people on the Earth (and, as far as we know, anywhere else in the Universe). So, the politicians elected by those two nations by definition represent the will of the majority of the world's population (if you were to follow such — in my opinion fallacious — logic about an elected official "representing" anyone's will).
But to most people it seems absurd that someone far away can dictate "us" how to live.
Furthermore, some Americans believe in states' rights: the rights of communities to decide what's right for them, independent of each other or some centralized government.
But why does it have to stop at the states or nations? Doesn't this reasoning, if taken to its logical conclusion, imply that no person may interfere with another's life, his expression of his will, his "pursuit of happiness" (except in self-defense against another's attempt at interference)? If we say: "Why should China dictate Americans how to live?", then why should Americans dictate each other how to live?
No comments:
Post a Comment