One more step towards collectivism...

[sbeaulieu]

Just read this article on Fox News site

Kho No!

I get a bit antsy and sweaty whenever I read about globalizing anything (law in particular) and stepping all over our Constitutional right to make our own decisions. I get aggrivated at the notion that international law could trump national/state law as well.

If the UN is a blueprint for how the world should be run, we're starting off with a crumbled foundation.

~ Shane

[Selene]

Well is anyone surprised?

Citizens of the world unite you have nothing to lose but choice. I believe that Mr. Koh is ok with Sharia law being protected in the US.

Koh also advocates a "transnational legal process" and has criticized the U.S. for its failure to "obey global norms."

In an article published in the Berkeley Journal of International Law in 2004, Koh wrote, "What role can transnational legal process play in affecting the behavior of several nations whose disobedience with international law has attracted global attention after September 11th -- most prominently, North Korea, Iraq and our own country, the United States of America? For shorthand purposes, I will call these countries 'the axis of disobedience.'"

Combine this with:

"Russia has become the first major country to call for a partial restoration of the Gold Standard to uphold discipline in the world financial system.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Last Updated: 10:33AM BST 31 Mar 2009

Arkady Dvorkevich, the Kremlin's chief economic adviser, said Russia would favour the inclusion of gold bullion in the basket-weighting of a new world currency based on Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.

Chinese and Russian leaders both plan to open debate on an SDR-based reserve currency as an alternative to the US dollar at the G20 summit in London this week, although the world may not yet be ready for such a radical proposal.

Related Articles

G20: Russia to play peripheral role at summit

*

US backing for world currency stuns markets

*

Geithner about-turn on dollar status shocks currency markets

*

Dollar surge will not stop America feeling the effects of a global crunch

*

Russia steps up high-risk battle on rouble

Mr Dvorkevich said it was "logical" that the new currency should include the rouble and the yuan, adding that "we could also think about more effective use of gold in this system".

The Gold Standard was the anchor of world finance in the 19th Century but began breaking down during the First World War as governments engaged in unprecedented spending. It collapsed in the 1930s when the British Empire, the US, and France all abandoned their parities.

It was revived as part of fixed dollar system until US inflation caused by the Vietnam War and "Great Society" social spending forced President Richard Nixon to close the gold window in 1971.

The world's fiat paper currencies have lacked any external anchor ever since. It is widely argued that the financial excesses and extreme debt leverage of the last quarter century would have been impossible - or less likely - under the discipline of gold.

Russia is a major gold producer with large untapped reserves of ore so it has a clear interest in promoting the idea. The Kremlin has already instructed the central bank of gradually raise the gold share of foreign reserves to 10pc.

China's government has floated a variant of this idea, suggesting a currency based on 30 commodities along the lines of the "Bancor" proposed by John Maynard Keynes in 1944."

Maybe Lee Harvey Oswald was ahead of his time when he defected to the Evil Empire.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Selene

[sbeaulieu]

The gold standard would indeed be an interesting path. It would certainly curtail inflation if all you could back the dollar with is what you have in gold (much like the British pound, if I remember correctly).

I'm curious...how would other nations with limited gold access (as compared to Russia, Africa, etc) fare in this economy?

And, can globalizing economy be compared side-by-side with putting global law into practice? The only similarity that I come to at the moment is that either will always favor some more than others. That could probably go unsaid.

~ Shane

[Rich Engle]

I don't see why you guys act so suprised about all this.

I read, here, elsewhere, accusations. Socialist, and such. That isn't even scratching the surface.

Follow the money.

[Christopher]

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. The primary argument against Koh is that he will make US law secondary to international law. However, the origin of this argument is that Koh did not support the human rights violations perpetrated by the US in the recent wars. The executive and legislative branches denied supposed terrorists the right to trial, held them without adequate reason, and subjected them to cruel and unusual punishment all according to either executive order or the Patriot Act. These actions are an embarrassment to US values.

Human rights is universal. US constitutional law was meant to extend to all people. It is inherently not nation-centered, which is precisely why Objectivists approve of it so much. The previous statement once made by the executive branch that human rights protected by US law only extends to citizen is situational ethics par excellence. It was absolute crap! If our laws go against human rights, I don't support them either!

The little I could find about Koh suggests he's for universal human rights. Let me know whether there's something else against him that is worthy of calling him a collectivist.

Chris

Edited April 1, 2009 by Christopher

[BaalChatzaf]

Human rights is universal. US constitutional law was meant to extend to all people. It is inherently not nation-centered, which is precisely why Objectivists approve of it so much. The previous statement once made by the executive branch that human rights protected by US law only extends to citizen is situational ethics par excellence. It was absolute crap! If our laws go against human rights, I don't support them either!

The U.S. Constitution was ordained and implemented by citizens of the U.S. and is the supreme law of the U.S. In theory, its principles may be extended universally, but in fact it is U.S. law under U.S. jurisdiction and has no authority outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Does it say anything about responsibilities in the constitution? Don't you think rights and responsibilities go hand in hand? Canada got some sort of Charter of Rights and Responsibilities when Trudeau was in power I think. Never looked at it.

[Christopher]

The U.S. Constitution was ordained and implemented by citizens of the U.S. and is the supreme law of the U.S. In theory, its principles may be extended universally, but in fact it is U.S. law under U.S. jurisdiction and has no authority outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's better not to think of the U.S. as a government body but rather as a collection of individuals who are determined to interact with other individuals according to a set of values. Your use of the "US" as a governmental body implies that in fact such an identity exists apart from the individuals.

If you believe in human rights, you will treat all humans equally regardless of nationality. However, those more conventional will believe human rights are merely a product of law and government.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Christopher

[BaalChatzaf]

It's better not to think of the U.S. as a government body but rather as a collection of individuals who are determined to interact with other individuals according to a set of values. Your use of the "US" as a governmental body implies that in fact such an identity exists apart from the individuals.

If you believe in human rights, you will treat all humans equally regardless of nationality. However, those more conventional will believe human rights are merely a product of law and government.

I will not treat all humans equally. That is because all humans aren't equal. I have a simple set of rules:

1. Family and Friends, protect and cherish them.

2. Neutral Strangers, as long as the mean no harm be polite to them.

3. Enemies, neutralize or destroy them.

You are also making a category error. The U.S. Constitution is law not morality. It is the operating rules of our government.

Also we are not some collection of individuals like molecules of gas in a container. We are bound and brought up to interact with each other by a particular set of rules and values. We are a people, in the political and collective sense and we are also individuals, but we do not operate in isolation.

Other nations have their own rules, we have ours. We are 'Murkins.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Chris:

"It's better not to think of the U.S. as a government body but rather as a collection of individuals..." really and for what reason?

See, I think you have an excellent moral question in there someplace.

Adam

[Christopher]

Chris:

"It's better not to think of the U.S. as a government body but rather as a collection of individuals..." really and for what reason?

See, I think you have an excellent moral question in there someplace.

Adam

I generally think government is a difficult entity to conceptualize. Flashes of old Ayn Rand writings are whizzing through my head as I think about this.

For one, government does often act as a singular body, but there is no such thing as an organism called "government" per se.

Government, in the most conventional sense, is generally about influence. The focal points of influence are organized around a few key individuals. For example, if the concept (call it the "illusion") of government is removed when observing a dictatorship in action, what is really observed is one man in control, several men in partial control, and a host of lesser men acting according to the values of those in control. Those in control are defined as being in control because of their ability to influence other men, and they influence other men into a group of aggressors capable of defining how "citizens" should behave - rewarding and punishing certain behaviors. In this view, there is no government per se, there are just a bunch of individuals acting in syncrony that gives rise to the appearance of an identity called government.

My understanding was that Ayn Rand's ideal vision of government was to ensure that the illusion of government as an entity never took precedence over the reality that government is simply a composite of individuals. She lauded the U.S. government because the writings of the founding fathers established just such a vision - that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The U.S. gov is a formalized contractual agreement between individuals such that said individuals band together against aggressive forces. But implicit within the creation of the contract is that individuals themselves have unalienable rights. A contract could not be made without the recognition of these rights. Therefore, before U.S. government there exists valuing human rights.

It becomes very dangerous when U.S. citizens argue that the values and behaviors of the U.S. government pertain only to U.S. citizens. Again, situational ethics... but it's more than that. Although it's true that U.S. citizens don't have contractual agreements with individuals from other nationalities, if U.S. citizens act against the values of human rights, those citizens undermine the foundations that allowed for the establishment of contracts between U.S. citizens.

So when Koh (or anyone for that matter) argues that human rights trump U.S. law, they're right. Law within the U.S. is derived from the contractual agreement that is the U.S. government. If those laws undermine human rights, they undermine the values that support enforcement of such laws.

Wouldn't you agree?

Chris

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Law within the U.S. is derived from the contractual agreement that is the U.S. government.

Christopher,

I have difficulty with this position because, as I once read in Lysander Spooner, I never signed a contract.

It could get real interesting if the pledge of allegiance is considered a contractual agreement since I learned to do that way before I had any kind of competence to sign a binding agreement.

I consider the charter documents of a government a special kind of arrangement, not contractual law. (I am not thinking at the moment about how it should be. I am thinking about how it is.)

Michael

[Christopher]

Christopher,

I have difficulty with this position because, as I once read in Lysander Spooner, I never signed a contract.

It could get real interesting if the pledge of allegiance is considered a contractual agreement since I learned to do that way before I had any kind of competence to sign a binding agreement.

I consider the charter documents of a government a special kind of arrangement, not contractual law. (I am not thinking at the moment about how it should be. I am thinking about how it is.)

Michael

When I see the picture of you rubbing your chin, that's exactly how I feel when considering what you're saying. Hmmmmm...

You're right, you didn't enter into a contractual agreement. I could argue that once you reach 18, you have the choice of either abiding by the laws of the land or leaving; however, I don't like that approach.

From Rand's perspective, could we argue that the contract is a man-made product representing an intangible fact of reality? In other words, all men are bestowed with certain inalienable rights. If the U.S. government as a contract is consistent with this principle, then violations of U.S. law represent violations of the rights of other individuals. When someone violates those rights, they can no longer claim freedoms granted by those rights (both lawfully and metaphysically). Therefore, no signature is required. You were born into the reality of the universe as such, and this contract between people represented by the U.S. government is as much a fact of reality as the existence of gravity.

Of course, U.S. law is massively inconsistent with human rights, so the idea of the contract remains an idealism of its creators. Instead, we're partially coerced by a mob of other people, but it's a small-enough level of coercion that we ignore it for the most part.

Christopher

Edited April 2, 2009 by Christopher