When forced to choose, a just government . . . (see text for full resolution)

This an interesting topic. It seems to me that the resolution problems, but we'll see how it goes. Definitions I accept the definition of "just government." N1. There is a problem with the definition of "human rights." Some human rights, including the ones Pro named, have widespread agreement, but others are controversial. Is government provided health care a human right? How about a right-to-life? How about a right to a job or a right to to housing or to education? The resolution requires that governments make a list of human rights, then undertake crusades to enforce those rights. A "crusade" is "a vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse." There is always a choice of spending a nation's resources on the crusade for human rights or for things related to self interest such as food or security. Therefore, the resolution implies governments should crusade for indefinite causes. Even the rights upon which there is general agreement are not universally held. Suppose a government decides that human rights considerations demand the imposition of Sharia law http://en.wikipedia.org..., they are then obligated to try to impose it worldwide. Because "human rights" are not well defined, the resolution fails immediately on the grounds of being indefinite. No one should affirm a resolution whose consequences are ill-defined. The resolution is likely to provoke "holy wars" over differing interpretations of human rights. Rights of free speech are not absolute anywhere, and in Canada, France, Great Britain, and Germany, for example, there are significant restrictions against what the governments consider to be "hate speech." The United States has no such restrictions. So the resolution requires that the U.S. press it's concept of free speech ahead of the national interest of maintaining friendly relations with those countries. The U.S. and Japan has death penalties, so that implies that those countries that think it immoral must crusade against it. It is possible to argue that enlightened self-interest always requires placing human rights above immediate self-interest. If so then the resolution is vacuous, saying no more than "governments should do the right thing." That cannot be what was intended for a national debate topic, because it isn't debatable. C1. Pro's case is one of presenting false choices. Negating the resolution does not require that a nation ignore human rights concerns. Negating the resolution means that the citizens of a country can decide through their elected government what instances of international human rights violations are more important that domestic needs. Pro falsely poses a choice between "dehumanizing outsiders" and prioritizing international human rights concerns above all domestic concerns. The alternative to the resolution is that governments ought to act in the enlightened self-interest of the people it represents. That means that human rights considerations are valid and important, but they must be measured against the health, welfare, and security of it's people. C2. Pro again assumes that the choice is between completely ignoring human rights and making international human rights an absolute priority. The examples that Pro cites are the land rights of peasants in Nigeria and the lack of free speech in China. Right now the top priority of the United States is economic recovery, and after that issues related to health care, immigration, and terrorism. The resolution says when "forced to choose" we must put Nigeria and China as higher priorities than national interests. What does "forced to choose" mean? Clearly, there is no deity descending from the heavens threatening lightning bolts for government choose to put one set of goals over another. The "force" must only be the need to choose in circumstances. For example, either we can put the resources of the United States primarily towards bettering the welfare of its citizens in economic recovery, or we can put them mainly to improving human rights in Nigeria, China, and elsewhere. The choice is present, so we are forced to make it. Under what circumstances might a government not be forced to choose? The only exception I can think of is when a country is at economic subsistence level. At that point a just government has no choice but to take care of its own people. Above that point they must choose between promoting national interest and promoting international human rights. It is wrong to require that people sacrifice for the sake of others. N2. The resolution implies elitist rule Pro cited the Declaration of Independence as authoritative on the subject of human rights. I agree that human rights have great importance, as the Declaration says. However, the Declaration is also authoritative on the power and functions of government. After declaring inalienable rights, it says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," The clear implication is that the people have the right to set the priorities of government. Lincoln famously restated this as, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" Gettysburg Address, http://en.wikipedia.org... The U.S. government has thus far operated through consent of the governed. For example, the U.S. intervened militarily in Bosnia in the interests of human rights, despite having very little national interest at stake. In that case, the people acting through government decided that the level of involvement in Bosnia in the cause of human rights had a priority above other issues of higher national self-interest. The resolution does not declare that "people" should put international human rights above self-interest, it declares that government should do so. It is absurd to suggest that people will voluntarily put themselves in economic disadvantage or increased threat of terrorism in order to make land rights in Nigeria a top priority. This is not speculation, we have the evidence of history. Sometimes international human rights are given high priority, per Bosnia, other times a lower priority. The lower priority may mean doing nothing, extending moral support, economic sanctions, or other measures short of priority above national interest. The resolution implies elite rulers who make moral judgments, deciding what human rights are important and how important, and then give them priority over national interest. This abandons democracy, and doing so is both immoral and dangerous. It is dangerous to empower national leaders to determine morality. N3. Requiring the interests of others be placed above self is immoral Morality includes moral judgments related to the individual, the family, and to society. There is moral obligation to support and protect one's self and one's family. The resolution subordinates the moral duties to self and family in favor of advancing the human rights of others, and it designated government as the agency for doing that. The resolution suggests that the families within a country ought to be made worse off at the hands of heir government for the sake of improving land rights in Nigeria and other human rights causes. That destroys the moral obligation to take care of oneself and family. If people vote to make some small sacrifice to help others at their expense of themselves, that is one thing, but the resolution demands that the human rights of others be given priority. The resolution is negated because it demands the immoral sacrifice of self for others. =================== The resolution requires that government determine what constitutes human rights and then crusade internationally for those rights as its priority. The purpose of government is to serve its people, not crusade internationally to advance its own ideas of morality. The resolution is negated.