----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:38 PM Subject: Re: New Pope?
> Dan wrote: > > > there is no empirical evidence for human rights. > > I'll bet a nickle you could prove that human rights provide a more > successful strategy than the lack therof. Well, all we have is history to judge this q >Any study that showed that well treated, contented people were more productive than ill treated > malcontents would do it. But, that's only part of the equation. The Roman empire lasted for centuries without the concept of human rights. Indeed, Augustine had to argue that it was _possible_ for someone with Christian morals to govern a state. The triumph of the West over Communism wasn't inevitable. Indeed, if FDR didn't (accidentally or on purpose) push Japan into war with the cutoff of oil, it's not clear that the US would have gotten sufficiently involved. If the Republicans didn't nominate a singular genius who was opposed to slavery for President, but just a very good campaigner who was equally opposed to slavery, then the question of "whether this country or any country so conceived" would survive might very well be answered in the negative. What I think you would have to show is not just that economic systems of free people tend to be more efficient than economic systems with oppression, but that in struggles between such systems, the outcome heavily favors the democracy. In the long term, I think you can make the argument that there are advantages afforded liberal democracies. But, one can also point to the tremors problems liberal democracies have for the first four score years or so. I'd welcome a detailed discussion of the question of whether the triumph of liberal democracies was/is inevitable. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
