I have noticed that with certain controversies, otherwise inflexible ethical judgments change when specifics are inserted. I’m not naming names here, or anywhere else in this post, but I’d like to see what DKos readers think about the following three propositions:
- If it is impossible for people to make a living legally and peacefully, they will do so illegally and violently.
This is equally applicable to residents of inner cities in the first world, people who are alienated from their governments or under occupation in the second world, and to people who, for reasons of caste, ethnicity, religion, or other factors, are an underclass in the third world. Anyone who has no hope of improvement in any other manner will resort to violence and illegality to change the system under which they live. Therefore, the first evaluation of any situation in which a people claim to be oppressed must be their freedom to rise from poverty, form viable businesses, participate in government and civic affairs, travel and move goods freely, and have the right to benefit from their labor, capital, and expertise. A people who have the opportunity to do these things are not truly oppressed on a collective basis – a people who do not have those opportunities are oppressed.
- Valid elections are determined by secret ballot, verified by impartial observers, and no other method of election is valid. An election that results in leadership that some people find distasteful still must be respected.
Most Americans revere the concept of a free and fair election, except when it results in an outcome we don’t like. A verifiably secret ballot must be respected, even when it results in bringing to power a candidate, party, or result we may consider repulsive, except in the most dire and exceptional circumstances that involve a majority voting to oppress a minority. Voters who express their opinion via secret ballot must have the right to reverse that decision at a future election, and regular elections must be scheduled so that decisions may be reconsidered. Any system of voting that is subject to direct observation by people in power, or who may come to power, must be branded as invalid. because an observed vote can not be honest due to fear of reprisal. This is applicable to national elections and to other elections, such as one that may determine union representation.
- The right to secede from a national government, or to federate with another state, rests solely in the individuals who are native to the region in question.
Borders throughout the world were drawn by colonial powers that had no knowledge of tribal, regional, religious, or linguistic differences, or were determined as the result of wars or treaties that reflected the geopolitics of another age. These artificial separations and inclusions have legitimized oppression and subjugation of minority peoples. In many cases, boundaries were drawn specifically to dilute the political or economic power of a specific group. In many cases a colonial or occupying power has flooded an area with newcomers who proceed to vote in elections designed specifically to validate colonial borders or those established as spoils of war. In cases where the allegiance of an region is determined, the will of the residents and citizens who are native to the area must be respected. The option of independence, not merely which rival power should rule, must be given to voters. The will of the natives of the region must be respected.
Three concepts, set out as clearly as I can present them. I welcome any suggestions about how they may be refined to be applicable to all situations. If they can be improved, please suggest the appropriate language. If they can not, might we accept them as the test of ethical behavior, and apply them to all relevant situations?
If you disagree with one of these propositions, please be specific about why. I look forward to your comments...