Or at least deserved an ending like it just because of the totalitarian measures which had subjugated entire populations for decades. It is a contradictory concept but very engaging human relationships, that, despite its roots in the more extreme individualism ends up assuming a universal connotation that you want to apply "in all places and at all times." In essence, we feel the supreme value of the individual and shall register a generic "human" based not only formal equality of all individuals. On the one hand, it proclaims the unique "uniqueness" of the individual and on the other pretends to throw the entire amount of such "oneness" within a single cauldron equiparante that would enshrine equality. The paradox appears in all its evidence, as preaching the equality of all individuals there is nothing to deny that their so-called "uniqueness." The tare clear of this whole approach "humanitarian", highlighted in their time as much to Karl Marx by Joseph De Maistre, is its obvious and incoherent abstraction. In this regard, when Fyodor Dostoevsky (ne "The Idiot") wrote that "In love for humanity abstract often ends up only love themselves," he simply summarized in a single sharp expression, the extreme ideology of "human rights ", pointing to the leveling of all individuals within the 'humanity' be prevented from taking into account the fact that the rights" real ", actual, arising from the full recognition of the differences between men. And these rights are neither innate nor prior to it, but reflect certain values \u200b\u200band historical traditions, in particular historical context in which they develop. Which refers most obviously to their purely relative, which makes them suitable for some contexts and not others. Schmitt's thinking in terms correct, it should be noted that there is a universe, but a "multi-verse" policy, which prevents contain all the peoples of the earth in a single group of any kind. The same Carl Schmitt wrote that "If the various peoples, religions, classes and other groups of men on earth were so united that it is impossible and unthinkable a war between them, if the same civil war, even within an empire covering all the world, no longer to be taken into account, for ever, even as a mere possibility, even if it fell the distinction of friend and enemy, even as a mere possibility, then there is only a conception of the world, a culture, a culture, economy, morality, right, an art, not contaminated by politics, but there would be neither political nor the state. "In short, the establishment of a depoliticized world where there is no enemy and in which all the peoples of the world peacefully in unison singing the praises of the "pensée unique". This does not correspond to the extinction of the war, but will lead to its further changes to the skin, where, continuing with Carl Schmitt, "If a state fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, its not a war of humanity, but a war for which a given state is trying to steal against his opponent, a universal concept in order to identify with it (at the expense of his enemy), so how can they be wrong to use the concepts of peace, justice, progress, civilization, to claim him and shield them from the enemy " . Moreover, the vague concept of 'humanity' itself - as pointed out, once again, by Carl Schmitt - to be heavily exploited for purposes imperialiastiche, hypocritically renamed as "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo represents a milestone. Those who argue in good faith the legality of that practice, unaware of the fact that, as the saying goes, "the paths that lead to hell is paved with good intentions, believe that reducing political institutions as carriers of poor "humanitarian credentials" will give way to the people to free themselves from their chains and start Rousseau inexorably toward the light path that leads to the attainment of achievements in different eras in Western countries. The smarter you are whitewashed tombs instead of this preposterous ideology contradicted repeatedly by history to cover with a veil ethical legitimizing their imperialist greed, by which to protect their special interests and very personal. As we have seen in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, such actions do nothing but worsen the situation and lead to the establishment of political and economic institutions for the consumption sharks cruising in the murky waters of financial markets. On a purely legal, such legitimation have shattered the pillars of international law set in 1648 at the Peace of Westphalia, which did not provide any facility which may be part of a state or a coalition of states to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nation in order to prevent or stop in advance so-called "human rights violations." In this case, it happened that the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union or the United States, it was steep (with the menial to the following European countries) as the supreme representative of an unspecified "international community" to extend its own economic model, cultural, social, and protect their interests by taking advantage of various, alleged "violations of human rights." Despite the desire to extend the same concern for justice beyond the boundaries of individual states may seem attractive in some environments, particularly nefarious, it must be remembered that justice can not in any case submit the policy, why is it that follows, and is down ' fruitful meeting of traditions and values \u200b\u200bmore or less shared within a given political community that the resulting legal constraints that reflect the broad lines of thought of the community. This suggests that any global justice is only applicable when several seemingly disparate political communities together are found to recognize the same principles. But this has never happened, and is a real deception (so dear to the various Pannella and Bonino) affirm that all peoples of the world are reflected in the West, or at least there would reflect, if only the "tyrants" of turn left them free to express themselves. But it is not necessary to apply the rhetoric of "human rights" to the global context in order to highlight the huge gray areas, as many aberrations can also be deduced from analysis of the situation prevailing within the West itself, the supreme temple of "human rights ". The imprint on irreducibly individualist whose ideology is based "humanitarian" has caused a massive hypertrophy of both claims, which refer to the "human rights" and an erosion of the social mirror, with the parallel judicial repercussions it entails. In essence, depopulated, a tendency to overlap the concept of "right" to that of "need" to be found in turn overlapped with that of "interest." Needs and interests in transforming needs into rights, we end up claiming substantially the "sacrosanct" protect their interests by passing off the latter for "rights", and as giants of the past such as Thomas Hobbes have demonstrated the overwhelming preponderance of the conflict ("homo homini lupus ") in human affairs, Western society has found itself "compelled" to come up with psychological tricks at the highest level of coercion (eg the studies of Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky on the subject) in order to keep under control the community and partly to stem the destructive potential conflict arising from competition between individuals. This was partly translated by the mammoth growth of the judiciary, which reflects the widespread tendency to total legalization of human relationships, as the only force capable of governing the chaos. The enormous power held (or acquired by?) Judges reduced the political space in which individuals accept to delegate to judges the task of resolving their conflicting interests, tanning entrusting the tasks that normally would be for the "political" in the hands of the judges, putting it entirely to the "mercy of the court." With the outcome you know.
0 comments:
Post a Comment