People's rights are not luxuries, but the purpose of government: "... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ...".
They are a necessity to achieve freedom and stability.
They are a necessity to achieve freedom and stability.
And it is 'natural' in the sense that it is valued ~~ universally. I can't establish objectively that it is valued everywhere, of course; I can establish that people en masse have valued it and fought for it all over the world, from Europe to South Asia to SE Asia to East Asia; in Africa, to all of the Americas.
And if you say, who are you or am I to tell them what they value? Who are the dictators? If we can't morally, then you agree they have a right to self-determination, or freedom.
Certainly I think all people should have say over how they are governed. Whether they use that say to give themselves freedom is another question.
> 'People here don't value freedom'
No one is saying this. The claim is that some people are willing to sacrifice one thing they value a little (freedom) for something they value more (safety).
I havent spent much time looking into the popular opinion about that trade off in Haiti, but to claim that they should never make it as you claim takes away their self determination. If your claim was that Haitans are by and large unhappy with the drone program that would be a different story, but to just say handling criminals extrajudicially is unacceptable no matter what strikes me as naive
You're assuming what they value more. Also, without freedom there is little safety. Without freedom of speech, etc., you can't have a free election where people can have self-determination.
And without universal rights, if some voters can take rights from other voters, nobody is safe or has self-determination.
> handling criminals extrajudicially is unacceptable no matter what strikes me as naive
You are naive to the age-old excuses of state murder and oppression. It's not only criminals (how do you even know who is a criminal?) and it's not going to stop. Do you think the mercenaries and others running the drones care? Do you think they won't murder people for their own benefit or through sheer recklessness and contempt for human life? There's a reason we have limited government and courts. That's why Haiti is in this current state - prior murderers who did the same. Murder is how they seized power and murder is how they kept it.
You'll notice that stable governments are not founded on extrajudicial state murder. That's not what Washington, Jefferson, etc. did.
In warfare, combatants are killed without trial but within the laws of warfare. Even there, extralegal killing is murder.
The anti-freedom crowd always finds an excuse to disregard others' rights, liberty, and welfare, to impose what they want to do on others. They do it in the US too.
Plenty of places like Haiti just put civilians in the battleground between two equal and equally bad sides, the military and the insurgents. Both sides give the same excuse why they maim and murder civilians, which doesn't begin to address the damage to property and welfare.
In Iraq, for example, the US finally stabilized things when they adopted an effective and acceptable anti-insurgent strategy (led by David Petraeus): Protect the population.
Exactly the words used by the enemies of freedom: 'It's naive!' It's predictable.
Nobody said anything about easy. Murdering civilians is easy, I suppose, but not a route to a solution nor an acceptable means.
It's strange because the dominant religion in the west has as a fundamental tenet that people are inherently bad. But I digress...
Unless one is some form of deist who believes there is a top-tier authority who is active in bending the fate of the world, there is no reason to believe rights are natural or exist in any way absent the will of the powerful. It's a sad conclusion but the only one I can come up with after 50 trips around the sun.
And now that universal rights have been weakened, the freedom, prosperity, and safety of those countries is weakening.
> Some form of "people are inherently good, governments will spontaneously form and will be altruistic unless a bad minority does otherwise."
That is a strawperson. Certainly nobody says 'spontaneously', and democratic goverments are constructed carefully to prevent abuses of power.
Naivete is swallowing the bait of fascists, hook, line and sinker: That freedom is somehow impossible, that people are only evil (instead of a mix of good and bad, either of which we can embrace and strengthen), and we must have a strongman. How convenient for the wannabe dictator.