The morally bankrupt concept of state equality still rules the International stage

Leader · 10-14-2005, 18:59 PM

It's time that changed

Lincoln, Calhoun
and the U.N.'s Dilemma
Why Americans reflexively reject the values of the United Nations.
by Michael Brandon McClellan
10/14/2005 12:00:00 AM

PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, John Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln articulated two very different ideas of equality. Each idea was powerful, and if followed, would lead to radically different outcomes. Calhoun's organizing principle can be boiled down to two words: state sovereignty. He believed in the equality of sovereign political states. In contrast, Lincoln's organizing principle of equality was the idea of individual natural rights. While Lincoln's idea of individual rights triumphed in the United States with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments and the success of the civil rights movement a century later, the Calhoun / Lincoln debate is, in a sense, still blazing in the arena of international law and in the dilemma of the United Nations.

From a perspective of organizing political principles, it is fair to say that above all else, John Calhoun stood for the idea of "entity equality." He believed that there was no higher level of political morality than that of a state being free to govern itself. Accordingly, if a group of citizens that held all of the political power in a state sought to enslave another group of citizens, the governing group was entitled to do so with the full protection of the law. In Calhoun's logic, this was derived from the fact that the governing group represented the sovereign and equal entity of the state.

For Calhoun, this idea of state equality was the only rational basis of organizing a free society in a stable federal system. No state could infringe upon the rights of another state. For, if state equality was not held sacrosanct and inviolable, then the people of a state could tyrannically infringe upon the rights of the people of another state. There would be no legal principle to stop, for example, the people of Massachusetts from imposing their will upon the people of South Carolina. All that would remain to prevent such imposition would be political and martial power.

In contrast, Lincoln stood for the idea of the natural rights of the individual. Lincoln believed that the fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence must illuminate all valid legal systems, and accordingly the U.S. Constitution. That fundamental principle, of course, is the idea that "all men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Lincoln, like the Founders, understood these rights to be universal.

Lincoln held that the purpose of government--at all levels--was to secure the rights of the governed. In Lincoln's framework, no government, even if democratically elected by a certain segment of society, had the right to enslave its citizens, for such would violate the natural rights of the governed. For Lincoln, Calhoun's principle was a farce; one could not, in the name of state liberty, deny individuals their God-given liberty.

Given this context, it is worth asking, whose ideas serve as the guiding principle of the United Nations system of international law? Calhoun's or Lincoln's?

THE UNITED NATIONS is based, first and foremost, on a principle of national sovereignty. In the U.N. framework, all nation states are sovereign equals and are entitled to the same legal protections from outside aggression. According to international law, North Korea's borders are as sovereign and sacrosanct as those of the United States. As a baseline, it is of little import that North Korea is governed by a tyrannical dictatorship that starves and functionally enslaves its citizens--it is still a sovereign nation, legally protected by Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. Just as it was not the black slaves, but rather the slave owners who were represented by the southern state governments prior to the American Civil War, it is not the people of North Korea who are represented in the U.N. system but rather Kim Jong Il and his governing junta.

In other words, the Calhoun / Lincoln dilemma is still with us, albeit elevated to the international level. As was true prior to the Civil War, a legal ideology has emerged that seeks to place primary emphasis upon state equality at the expense of human freedom within the various states. It is plain that the United Nations principle of sovereign equality, like Calhoun's idea of state sovereignty prior to the American Civil War, can lead to the legal protection of the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed. This is necessarily accomplished when equality is emphasized among governments, regardless of their treatment of the individuals they govern.

If Calhoun's idea of "entity equality" is the organizing principle of a legal system, then there is indeed no basis for challenging the internal governance of an autonomous and equal entity. There is no basis upon which to say that a free state is better than a slave state (and thus just in acting to free the slaves), or that a constitutional democracy is better than an absolute despotism (and thus just in removing the despot). In such a framework, what matters is the principle of non-aggression between equal sovereign entities--in the case of Calhoun this meant states, and in the case of the United Nations this means nation states.

Perhaps because Lincoln's ideas have prevailed so emphatically in the United States, it is difficult for Americans to embrace a U.N. system that is moored so securely to the "entity equality" logic of John Calhoun. Just as the moral bankruptcy of Calhoun's political philosophy is so apparent when placed in the natural rights framework of Lincoln, so too is the U.N. framework undermined when viewed in the context of individual human freedom.

To Abraham Lincoln, the value of a government was to be determined not by its sacred sovereignty, but rather by the degree to which it secured the rights of the governed. Lincoln recognized that it is not states, but rather the individuals within states who are the true possessors of rights. Accordingly, even an international legal system cannot remain forever indifferent to the character of the governments it purportedly governs; nor can it remain perpetually neutral between freedom and bondage. The degree to which sovereignty should be afforded states that do not secure the rights of the governed is a question that demands asking now as much as it did in Lincoln's day.

Michael Brandon McClellan lives in Southern California and runs the weblog PortMcclellan.com. He was a 2005 Lincoln Fellow with the Claremont Institute.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/198hlsbp.asp

troung · 10-17-2005, 01:22 AM

I am sure that dictorships disgust us both almost equally...

I guess an update is needed as the UN was formed in a time with the USSR as a major member and European nations fighting to maintian control of colonies in Asia and Africa. Plus so many nations in the UN are run by "strongmen", "royals" and simple juntas that who will vote on changing things.

Plus Mush rules by as much internal support as say the Burmese junta... the military... so yes that doesn't reflect our values but our needs as a nation...

And do you really want an international body telling you how to run the nation... slippery slope I guess... I'm "fine" with the UN running child sex slave operations in nations they are there to "help", going down on dictators, and skimming aid money...

barrowaj · 10-17-2005, 01:29 AM

And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

dalem · 10-17-2005, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

Oh come on, that's not a sound analogy and you know it.

-dale

Leader · 10-17-2005, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

Note that the above has no connection to the article or the topic of this thread.

barrowaj · 10-17-2005, 12:05 PM

I think the title says it all:
"The morally bankrupt concept of state equality"

Its the same concept as what you are saying.

**ZFBoxcar** · 10-17-2005, 12:59 PM

It's how the leaders are chosen not the size population thats being discussed. So long as all are constitutional democracies, their population is irrelevant. All states in the US elect their senators and all states have their own constitution. What you are talking about is proportional representation vs regional representation. You know damn well that that is not what this is about.

**Julie** · 10-17-2005, 13:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

Then it wouldn't be the "United" States of America anymore....just America. Then you would be left with a Dictatorship, like Iraq was. Your response is a no-go. Please try again.

Ray · 10-17-2005, 14:21 PM

Julie,

I am confused.

I think you Americans overdo individual rights over societal law and order.

I am all for individual rights, but then I want them protected within a scoiety that has rules which ensures that others respect my individual rights.

But all I see from the US posters is that the govt is being dictatorial!

Christ, give us a break!

I am asking you this since you appear to be more sensible that some of these wild west veterans that one accosts amongst the American posters here!

I hope I have riled the Wild West John Wayne crooked lip types to return a salvo!

Remember you wild west cowboys, my name is Wyatt Earp. I never sit with a window behind me!

Come on and get me. I am a great fan of Davy Crockette. "If you are right, then go ahead". "Remember the Alamo". I have my Bowie knife ready and he was a Colonel. I outrank him. I will unsheathe my sword of Allah!

Meet me in Iraq!

Bismillah!

Praxus · 10-17-2005, 15:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

Are any of the states threatening to invade other innocent states if they don't give their state a nuclear reactor and food aid?

Thought not. Invalid comparison, and dishonest to say the least.

Leader · 10-17-2005, 15:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

I think the title says it all:
"The morally bankrupt concept of state equality"

Of morally unequal states. China and the US aren't equal, and it has nothing to do with China having 4 times the population. If you have read the article and understood it, I wouldn't have to tell you that. You probably just read the title and replied.

Quote:

Its the same concept as what you are saying.

Are my posts in Japanese or something? You seem to have an amazing ability to not understand a word I'm saying. It's like you have this preconceived notion of what I'm going to say and the hell if you're going to let me believe something different.

Praxus · 10-17-2005, 15:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

I think you Americans overdo individual rights over societal law and order.

I am all for individual rights, but then I want them protected within a scoiety that has rules which ensures that others respect my individual rights.

You are either a free man with a full set of individual rights or you are a slave. Are you upset that we wish to have our lives and property? To not be de facto slaves of inferior men simply because some fool thinks it benefits "societal law and order".

Quote:

But all I see from the US posters is that the govt is being dictatorial!

If a Government dictates to us something which is not right, it is being dictatorial.

Ray · 10-17-2005, 16:04 PM

Praxus.

Heck.

Then why have the Freedom Act?

Be Free.

What's a few WTCs down abnd a few 1000s killed so long as your precious hide is protected and safe in some hillbilly shack in the mountains where even the Devil refuses to tread, right?

I dislike the Freedom Act, but Americans on this board tell me that is is required from the Islamic hordes!

So, my friend?

Starts something philosophical that neither you understand nor God, but is nevertheless impressively stupid!

Praxus · 10-17-2005, 16:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray

Praxus.

Heck.

Then why have the Freedom Act?

Be Free.

What's a few WTCs down abnd a few 1000s killed so long as your precious hide is protected and safe in some hillbilly shack in the mountains where even the Devil refuses to tread, right?

How is this connected to what I said?

dalem · 10-17-2005, 17:16 PM

Ahh, that tumultuous temptress, the UN. How she tickles us demurely:

LGF link here.

Quote:

“Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed [an] unholy alliance, form an alliance to attack an innocent country?” asked Mr Mugabe, apparently referring to Iraq.

“The voice of Mr Bush and the voice of Mr Blair can’t decide who shall rule in Zimbabwe, who shall rule in Africa, who shall rule in Asia, who shall rule in Venezuela, who shall rule in Iran, who shall rule in Iraq,” he said.

Mr Mugabe said his land reforms, which enabled the government to seize hundreds of farms owned mostly by white Zimbabweans, had been part of a process to correct colonial injustices.

He blamed agricultural subsidies offered to farm produce from developed countries for crippling “the development of agriculture in developing countries”.

Delegates applauded Mr Mugabe at the end of his speech.

The UN is really at its best when it's rolling in its own feces.

-dale

10-14-2005, 18:59 PM	#1 (permalink)
Leader Ubi dubium ibi libertas *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-04-03 Location: Boston, MA, USPRA Posts: 5,124	The morally bankrupt concept of state equality still rules the International stage It's time that changed Lincoln, Calhoun and the U.N.'s Dilemma Why Americans reflexively reject the values of the United Nations. by Michael Brandon McClellan 10/14/2005 12:00:00 AM PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, John Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln articulated two very different ideas of equality. Each idea was powerful, and if followed, would lead to radically different outcomes. Calhoun's organizing principle can be boiled down to two words: state sovereignty. He believed in the equality of sovereign political states. In contrast, Lincoln's organizing principle of equality was the idea of individual natural rights. While Lincoln's idea of individual rights triumphed in the United States with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments and the success of the civil rights movement a century later, the Calhoun / Lincoln debate is, in a sense, still blazing in the arena of international law and in the dilemma of the United Nations. From a perspective of organizing political principles, it is fair to say that above all else, John Calhoun stood for the idea of "entity equality." He believed that there was no higher level of political morality than that of a state being free to govern itself. Accordingly, if a group of citizens that held all of the political power in a state sought to enslave another group of citizens, the governing group was entitled to do so with the full protection of the law. In Calhoun's logic, this was derived from the fact that the governing group represented the sovereign and equal entity of the state. For Calhoun, this idea of state equality was the only rational basis of organizing a free society in a stable federal system. No state could infringe upon the rights of another state. For, if state equality was not held sacrosanct and inviolable, then the people of a state could tyrannically infringe upon the rights of the people of another state. There would be no legal principle to stop, for example, the people of Massachusetts from imposing their will upon the people of South Carolina. All that would remain to prevent such imposition would be political and martial power. In contrast, Lincoln stood for the idea of the natural rights of the individual. Lincoln believed that the fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence must illuminate all valid legal systems, and accordingly the U.S. Constitution. That fundamental principle, of course, is the idea that "all men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Lincoln, like the Founders, understood these rights to be universal. Lincoln held that the purpose of government--at all levels--was to secure the rights of the governed. In Lincoln's framework, no government, even if democratically elected by a certain segment of society, had the right to enslave its citizens, for such would violate the natural rights of the governed. For Lincoln, Calhoun's principle was a farce; one could not, in the name of state liberty, deny individuals their God-given liberty. Given this context, it is worth asking, whose ideas serve as the guiding principle of the United Nations system of international law? Calhoun's or Lincoln's? THE UNITED NATIONS is based, first and foremost, on a principle of national sovereignty. In the U.N. framework, all nation states are sovereign equals and are entitled to the same legal protections from outside aggression. According to international law, North Korea's borders are as sovereign and sacrosanct as those of the United States. As a baseline, it is of little import that North Korea is governed by a tyrannical dictatorship that starves and functionally enslaves its citizens--it is still a sovereign nation, legally protected by Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter. Just as it was not the black slaves, but rather the slave owners who were represented by the southern state governments prior to the American Civil War, it is not the people of North Korea who are represented in the U.N. system but rather Kim Jong Il and his governing junta. In other words, the Calhoun / Lincoln dilemma is still with us, albeit elevated to the international level. As was true prior to the Civil War, a legal ideology has emerged that seeks to place primary emphasis upon state equality at the expense of human freedom within the various states. It is plain that the United Nations principle of sovereign equality, like Calhoun's idea of state sovereignty prior to the American Civil War, can lead to the legal protection of the oppressors at the expense of the oppressed. This is necessarily accomplished when equality is emphasized among governments, regardless of their treatment of the individuals they govern. If Calhoun's idea of "entity equality" is the organizing principle of a legal system, then there is indeed no basis for challenging the internal governance of an autonomous and equal entity. There is no basis upon which to say that a free state is better than a slave state (and thus just in acting to free the slaves), or that a constitutional democracy is better than an absolute despotism (and thus just in removing the despot). In such a framework, what matters is the principle of non-aggression between equal sovereign entities--in the case of Calhoun this meant states, and in the case of the United Nations this means nation states. Perhaps because Lincoln's ideas have prevailed so emphatically in the United States, it is difficult for Americans to embrace a U.N. system that is moored so securely to the "entity equality" logic of John Calhoun. Just as the moral bankruptcy of Calhoun's political philosophy is so apparent when placed in the natural rights framework of Lincoln, so too is the U.N. framework undermined when viewed in the context of individual human freedom. To Abraham Lincoln, the value of a government was to be determined not by its sacred sovereignty, but rather by the degree to which it secured the rights of the governed. Lincoln recognized that it is not states, but rather the individuals within states who are the true possessors of rights. Accordingly, even an international legal system cannot remain forever indifferent to the character of the governments it purportedly governs; nor can it remain perpetually neutral between freedom and bondage. The degree to which sovereignty should be afforded states that do not secure the rights of the governed is a question that demands asking now as much as it did in Lincoln's day. Michael Brandon McClellan lives in Southern California and runs the weblog PortMcclellan.com. He was a 2005 Lincoln Fellow with the Claremont Institute. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/198hlsbp.asp __________________ "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" NEVER FORGET

10-17-2005, 14:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,276 Country:	Julie, I am confused. I think you Americans overdo individual rights over societal law and order. I am all for individual rights, but then I want them protected within a scoiety that has rules which ensures that others respect my individual rights. But all I see from the US posters is that the govt is being dictatorial! Christ, give us a break! I am asking you this since you appear to be more sensible that some of these wild west veterans that one accosts amongst the American posters here! I hope I have riled the Wild West John Wayne crooked lip types to return a salvo! Remember you wild west cowboys, my name is Wyatt Earp. I never sit with a window behind me! Come on and get me. I am a great fan of Davy Crockette. "If you are right, then go ahead". "Remember the Alamo". I have my Bowie knife ready and he was a Colonel. I outrank him. I will unsheathe my sword of Allah! Meet me in Iraq! Bismillah! Last edited by Ray : 10-17-2005 at 14:25 PM.

10-17-2005, 16:04 PM	#13 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,276 Country:	Praxus. Heck. Then why have the Freedom Act? Be Free. What's a few WTCs down abnd a few 1000s killed so long as your precious hide is protected and safe in some hillbilly shack in the mountains where even the Devil refuses to tread, right? I dislike the Freedom Act, but Americans on this board tell me that is is required from the Islamic hordes! So, my friend? Starts something philosophical that neither you understand nor God, but is nevertheless impressively stupid! Last edited by Ray : 10-17-2005 at 16:09 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Causes & Consequences of Strategic Failure in Afghanistan & Iraq	lulldapull	The War in Iraq	35	05-20-2008 03:48 AM
Update: Somalia	Leader	International Defense Topics	7	12-06-2004 02:44 AM
Tribal Warfare	Gio	Current Affairs	0	10-01-2004 23:40 PM
It Is Time To Get Serious…	Ulian	Political Discussions	15	09-27-2004 11:57 AM

10-17-2005, 01:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
troung A Self Important *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 4,390 Country:	I am sure that dictorships disgust us both almost equally... I guess an update is needed as the UN was formed in a time with the USSR as a major member and European nations fighting to maintian control of colonies in Asia and Africa. Plus so many nations in the UN are run by "strongmen", "royals" and simple juntas that who will vote on changing things. Plus Mush rules by as much internal support as say the Burmese junta... the military... so yes that doesn't reflect our values but our needs as a nation... And do you really want an international body telling you how to run the nation... slippery slope I guess... I'm "fine" with the UN running child sex slave operations in nations they are there to "help", going down on dictators, and skimming aid money...

10-17-2005, 01:29 AM	#3 (permalink)
barrowaj Contributor Join Date: 08-22-04 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 710	And on that note, we should also do away with the Senate, because it supports equal rights for states regardless of size, political leaning, and economic might.

10-17-2005, 12:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
barrowaj Contributor Join Date: 08-22-04 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 710	I think the title says it all: "The morally bankrupt concept of state equality" Its the same concept as what you are saying.

10-17-2005, 12:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,129 Country:	It's how the leaders are chosen not the size population thats being discussed. So long as all are constitutional democracies, their population is irrelevant. All states in the US elect their senators and all states have their own constitution. What you are talking about is proportional representation vs regional representation. You know damn well that that is not what this is about.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)