The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How to Fix the Dark Side of the World Cup
Like the Olympics, the World Cup is rife with human rights abuses and glorification of authoritarian host regimes. It doesn't have to be that way.

Today is the first day of the 2022 World Cup, held in Qatar. Yesterday, FIFA President Gianni Infantino defended his organization's decision to award Qatar the right to host this event. Responding to critics who point out that Qatar is a repressive authoritarian state, Infantino avowed that "Today I feel Qatari. Today I feel Arabic. Today I feel African. Today I feel gay. Today I feel disabled." His assurances of solidarity with gay people might be more credible if FIFA hadn't awarded its premier event to a state where gay sex is a crime, punishable by a sentence of up to seven years in prison. Qatar also severely restricts freedom of speech and expression, including enforcing "chilling" restrictions on foreign media organizations covering the Cup.
The issue of migrant workers' rights is, I think, more complicated than sometimes depicted. Nonetheless, it is clearly unjust that the government makes it difficult or impossible for workers to quit their jobs and switch employers (albeit it has to be admitted that similar flaws also exist in some US work-visa programs).
The best that can be said for Qatar's human rights record is that it it probably isn't as bad as that of the host of the last World Cup: Vladimir Putin's Russia. Like the world's other great international sports event - the Olympics - the World Cup is all too often a propaganda showcase for repressive regimes, and also a cause of human rights violations of its own, such as the forcible displacement of large numbers of people to build stadiums. And, as with the Olympics, the World Cup often ends up with awful authoritarian host countries because of corruption in the international body that makes hosting decisions (in this case FIFA). That's what happened in the cases of both Russia and Qatar.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Earlier this year, in the wake of the awful Beijing winter games, I outlined a series of reform proposals for the Olympics. Most are applicable - with minor modifications - to the World Cup, as well. Here they are, with a few modifications, relevant to the World Cup.
1. No public subsidies. Let the games be funded purely by private organizations and sponsors, as was largely the case for the successful 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. That way, no one has to pay for the games, except those who profit from them and the audience that voluntarily chooses to watch.
2. No forcible displacement of residents, private businesses, or civil society organizations. We can and should hold sports events without kicking innocent people out of their homes.
3. No hosting rights for authoritarian human rights violators. There are plenty of possible Olympic venues that aren't controlled by likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, or the Emir of Qatar. Denying these types of rulers hosting rights won't fundamentally alter their regimes. But it will at least damage their image and deny them propaganda victories.
4. There must be full freedom of speech at all competition venues and in all interactions between competitors, media, and the local population. At the very least, athletes, journalists, and spectators should be entirely free to criticize the host government and its policies (or any other government for that matter).
5. There must be no "public health" measures blocking normal human interaction between athletes, members of the media, and residents of the host city. Such measures defeat the whole point of having the competition in a particular country in the first place. If the Games or the Cup are to be held in a "bubble," that can be done almost anywhere. Moreover, scientific evidence increasingly shows that lockdowns and other similar restrictions on freedom of movement do little to stop the spread of Covid, while causing enormous harm. But if a city really is somehow too disease-ridden to allow normal human interaction, it is also too disease-ridden to host major international sports events. In fairness, this point was largely inspired by the draconian Covid restrictions in China, and may have relatively little relevance to other countries.
It is blatantly obvious that a deeply corrupt organization like FIFA will never accept such constraints of its own accord. The same goes for the International Olympic Committee. But they can be pressured into doing the right thing. The strategy I outlined for how to do this with the Olympics is also applicable for the World Cup:
[T]he United States and other liberal democracies can easily force through these reforms simply by making them a condition of future participation in the games. Without the participation of the US and its allies, IOC revenue would plummet, as the value of broadcast rights massively declines.
The question is whether the US and other Western governments have the political will to do what needs to be done….
The US and other democracies can make these demands more credible by threatening to host alternative Winter and Summer games of their own. This would undermine the objection that boycotts unfairly deprive athletes of the opportunity to compete at the highest level. I suggested a similar strategy to force the IOC to move the 2022 games out of Beijing.
Due to the relatively low popularity of soccer here, the US is a far less important source of TV revenue for the World Cup than the Olympic. But liberal democracies nonetheless still account for the lion's share of FIFA's income from the event. They also have a large majority of the world's top national teams. And, as with the Olympics, western nations can credibly threaten to hold an alternative competition should FIFA refuse to comply.
In sum, liberal democracies have all the leverage they need to permanently do away with the dark side of the World Cup, as well as that of the Olympics. All we need is the political will to use it.
I am far from optimistic that it will be generated anytime soon. But, over time, widespread condemnation of travesties like the Beijing Olympics and the last three World Cups (Russia, Qatar, and the 2014 Cup in Brazil, which featured forcible displacement of thousands of people) might generate momentum for reform.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Huh, Somin wants countries to bully sports organizations into operating and communicating according to Somin's personal values.
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more consistent with Somin's so-called libertarianism for Somin to shut up and mind his own business instead?
But absolutely feel free to go ahead and make these proposals. See if anyone cares.
I may not agree with all of the ideas posited above, but human rights are personal values now?
I'm not one who think there's a lot to natural law, but that's a shitload of moral relativism you're bringing in to defend Qatar of all places in order that you can attack Prof. Somin because you don't like his immigration policies.
"but human rights are personal values now?"
I do hope you haven't forgotten the is-ought problem. So, yeah, actually.
Noticing that Somin is being a busybody is obviously not a defense of Qatar. Obviously.
Somin is the opposite of a Libertarian. He is always telling everyone what to do.
Libertarians are allowed to have opinions about how things should be.
That’s libertarians’ main thing, actually.
Libertarianism is almost entirely about what means are acceptable, though, not what aims are. As a theory, it's quite agnostic about ends.
That's very much not true as to libertarianism and ends. Nozick's whole project, for instance, is to derive an ideal society as an end, and with government's purpose specified, not it's means.
Arguably that's a weakness in his theory of maximal consent being the metric of an ideal society, since it allows mission creep, especially via torts.
"Nozick’s whole project, for instance, is to derive an ideal society as an end, and with government’s purpose specified, not it’s means."
And his "ideal society" was a bunch of diverse smaller societies where people could pursue their individual and differing views of the good life.
This is quite wrong. He doesn't talk about diversity of societies; it's all about government. And his government is always the same - the minimal state. Because anything more would risk less consent of the governed, and therefore be worse under his paradigm.
Smaller government units are temporary; a government as Nozick envisions cannot allow its monopoly on force to be challenged.
Indeed, he talked about how nations are an artefact of impassible geography - one world government of the minimal state would arrive as soon as technology got good enough to require it.
What is Utopia? The Meta-Utopian Argument
Perhaps you didn't read that part of the book?
Indeed.
And what about "foot voting" -- if it's valid, everyone will simply go to the free countries anyway.
Even the unfree countries' armies, and secret police!
Why does commie football need to be fixed?
Consider this:
• No one understands the rules.
• Workers are prohibited from using the tools that would let them be more productive (hands).
• From time to time petty bureaucrats (officials) interfere with play in such a way as to limit production.
• Players, coaches, officials and fans are all fully involved (employed) and yet output is miniscule.
• Any production is met by celebration all out of proportion to its objective value.
• The referees wear red
• Followers are slavishly (religiously?) devoted to the system and their own brand of it and resort to violence at any criticism of either.
• There are destroyers (hooligans) that disrupt the crowds
Clearly, Soccer is Communist football. It must be stopped.
Couldn't agree more, and there's no opportunity for one player to fail spectacularly and lose the game for everyone, like missing an easy layup/free throw in hoops, Fumbling a Fair Catch/Missing Extra Point/Throwing a pick in Foo-baw, Baseball? see Buckner, Bill, near-hall-of-fame only remembered for 1 "E" (and that "Curb your enthusiasm" episode) or maybe "Oakland Designated Runner" Herb Washington getting picked off in the 74 series (still hasn't made it to first)
Maybe if you miss in sudden death penalty kicks, which are the best part of the sport, but even then it's not the same..
Frank
"No opportunity for one player to fail spectacularly and lose the game for everyone."
You might want to take that up with Andres Escobar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9s_Escobar#Own_goal_incident_and_subsequent_murder
Yes, 30 years ago, and I'm not even talking bout Pros, but especially with kids, Soccer is the feel-good sport that everybody gets to play, nobody really gets hurt (at least not like a fastball to the ribs, a groundball to the balls, forearm shiver to your chin) girls can play with the boys and nobody drops a flyball/strikes out/walk in the winning(losing) run with the bases loaded, jumps offsides in the last minute, drop a sure TD pass in the endzone, dribbles a ball of his foot allowing the other team to have the ball, score an win (I've done all of those)
and then you have to face your teammates,
Frank
Thanks for the chuckles, Doc. Well done. 🙂
ER-Doc,
"No one understands the rules."
That is American football
Fully agree, of course.
The one thing to keep in mind, though, is that these tournaments exist in part to raise lots of money to cross-subsidise lots of other things in the world of sport. The Olympics and the World Cup are the two biggest fundraisers in sports, and that means that sometimes you have to go where the money is.
Just what and who do they subsidize?
Themselves of course. What little is left goes to cronies in charge of unpopular sports.
Very few Olympic sports could exist professionally without some kind of subisdy. In rich countries the national government will always use tax money to make professional elite sports possible, but wouldn't it be nice if it was also possible for there to be, say, a professional bobsleighing team in Jamaica?
Can't think of many Olympic sports (both Summer and Winter) that are truly professional. Yes, athletes in other sports are being paid (usually by equipment sponsors) but I can't recall a professional bobsled league, Jamaican or otherwise.
What do you think the Bobsleigh World Cup cycle is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobsleigh_World_Cup
If I say I've never heard of it, am I alone?
Define professional? If it means "has sponsorships for money and gear" then most of them do.
It's all in here, once you get past the pretty pictures: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/7b8f2f002eb69403/original/FIFA-Annual-Report-21.pdf
"Today I feel . . ."
That about sums up what is wrong with Western society today.
To paraphrase a famous singer, "Feelings, nothing more than feelings . . ."
Perhaps if the 'pean Perv wasn't feeling all those dudes he might actually get some work done.
Calling Morris Albert "famous" is a bit of a stretch.
Prof. Somin customarily uses any current event to pitch and/or claim vindication for a bunch of libertarian ideas, most of which are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I'm surprised he didn't add a requirement that all psychoactive substances be permitted to the spectators at any international sporting event. Maybe he didn't think of it.
If Western countries want to band together and banish non-democracies from international sports, or at least consign them to second class status--you can visit, but you can never host--that's fine, although somewhat contrary to the other libertarian idea that we go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. But it will diminish the popular appeal of the events, and thus their profitability.
1. Money is fungible, and this is unenforceable. Reminds of Boeing accusing Airbus of having state subsidies.
2. Outlawing eminent domain is only a little bit more enforceable than banning subsidies.
3. Defining “human rights violators” is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Every country violates human rights one way or another.
4. Is hate speech free speech? Is slander? Who defines it?
5. Even Sweden had some pandemic reactions; some argue they were worse than China.
These are all far too subjective to be of any use except for state apologists and their cronies.
ETA typoes.
Well according to the Rev. Costco the "replacements" should be increasing the US audience.
I think you have an excessively optimistic idea of just how "liberal" (In a classical sense!) the developed nations of the world are.
STEP ONE: Get a President who doesn't look like a Bond villain.
I didn't know Bezos was a President.
I'll gladly diss Biden on many grounds, but looking like a Bond villain? Hardly.
? Bezos, not Biden. Biden looks like a walking (shuffling?) Silver Alert.
Soccer?
Watching paint dry?
Equally interesting.
Let the commies who play kickball do whatever they want.
How about playing the Cup in a Democratic Progressive Nation with great (Nude) Beaches within a 1/2 hours Drive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tel Aviv!!!!!!!!
Frank " USA vs Iran??? " We play Soccer with a country we don't have an Embassy in????
Poverty ball, where you also need a degree in acting.
There is simply too much money involved to expect FIFA to be clean. You can clean up football at a national level, but internationally, forget it.
I think the issue for many people isn't that FIFA is corrupt, it's more how obviously corrupt it is. There's no way Qatar as the stage helps football as a whole but it is apparent how rich autocrats disfavored in other nations are helped, and therefore how the organizers were helped by the rich autocrats.
I'm an American. I don't have to pretend I care about soccer. Nothing I could do will stop European teams from pretending they don't boost the images of terrible autocracies and backwards nations or make other countries care that they are terrible and backwards. I can feel smug that the colonial anglosphere sidesteps the issue with gridiron football nobody else wants to play, though.
I always thought that it would be a fascinating book to do a deep dive into exactly *how* Germany got the '36 Olympics. Who made the decisions, who were other countries who were in the final running, how prevalent was Nazism when the Games were awarded to Germany, etc.? I'm sure there is a really interesting story there. (I suspect that, with pretty much all of the Games over the past 60 years, there would be a "So, this is how sausages are made!" fascination/horror in response to an objective exposé of the corruption that has gone into each such decision.)
It's my sense that the IOC (along with close competition from FIFA) is one of the most cheerfully corrupt and sleazy organizations on the face of the Earth. "Yeah; our top officials take bribes. What's it to ya?!?!!!
According to Wikipedia (so it must be true):
"At the 28th IOC Session, held during 1930, in Berlin, 14 cities announced their intention to bid to host the 1936 Summer Olympic Games... The vote occurred on 26 April 1931, at the 29th IOC Session held in Barcelona, Spain that year."
Thus the award was made before Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933. It's worth mentioning that Berlin had been slated to host the 1916 games which were cancelled by WWI.
Any country that imprisons people for ingesting intoxicants is an authoritarian human rights violator. So, who will host? Portugal?
Thousands of European Hooligans drinking in Qatar?? what could go wrong??
Here's a defense of the decision to hold the World Cup by the editors of The Economist, a magazine that one might not expect to defend that decision. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/11/17/in-defence-of-qatars-hosting-of-the-world-cup
"a magazine that one might not expect to defend that decision"
How much Qatar [or other Saudi/Gulf States] ad money does it receive?
#3 is a total non-starter. I am surprised Professor Somin is pushing it. Was that virtue-signaling?
Who decides the 'that person is an autocrat and dictator' and ttherefore is ineligible to host the World Cup?
Using what standard?
Other: Go Team USA!
I agree with your skepticism. However, the data exist to make these decisions. There are a number of “freedom” indexes out there the measure things like press freedom and how opposition parties are treated by sitting governments, etc. For me, if there’s corruption in awarding these events to governments then there will likely be corruption in determining whether a country like, say, Hungary is authoritarian or not. Though, as I said, the experts and data exist to make these determinations once there’s agreement on where the line is drawn.
One of the failures in modern "liberals" is a lack of understanding that other people and societies can have different values and customs, and that's OK.
Even if you as an individual don't particularly agree with those values or custom, it is OK for other people to have those values and customs, and not necessarily correct for you to try to force them to change. That as a society, as a people, we should take the items we have in common with our fellow society and celebrate those commonalities, rather than try to use the commonalities as a proverbial beat stick to enforce our values on others who don't share them.
Qatar, in addition, is one of those great examples that demonstrates why "foot voting" as promoted by Somin doesn't work. Qatar has a large migrant worker population, coming from largely more free societies, to a more "oppressive" society. This is backwards to how Somin says foot voting should work, yet isn't addressed.
“One of the failures in modern ‘liberals’ is a lack of understanding that other people and societies can have different values and customs, and that’s OK.”
Yeah….modern conservatives are totally cool, “that other people and societies can have different values and customs.”
GTFO
whataboutism. Next.
Gay marriage is against universal principles of marriage.
Human rights? Who are you to claim the high ground, imperialist!
I did not expect this post to reveal the fundamental lack of principles behind the right wingers on here so strongly.
So, that was a bunch of phrases with no real coherent argument. Just ranting nonsense.
Unless you’re down with American taking in the oppressed and dispossessed from all countries, and helping them get here to boot, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “those countries should do better so there aren’t so many oppressed and dispossessed”.
The problem is not in simply "asking" they do better. The issue is in using coercive means to "ensure" they do better...better defined by you.
There are two ways to interpret this:
1) "I haven't paid attention to philosophy in about 500 years."
2) "Why are liberals pushing all the gay stuff on us?"
Your education appears to have failed you, if you think those are the only two ways.
It's okay if it's Qatar but what about Texas vs California vs Colorado? Is it okay that women can get an abortion in two of those states or will the GOP attempt to pass a law limiting abortion in all 50 states? Why only use national boundaries? How was the resulting streak of anti-choice laws across the country celebrating our commonalities and not an attempt to force people to change?
Foot-voting as a concept is pretty flawed if it doesn't consider structural barriers to relocation.
Why is it that liberals like yourself only care about killing babies and gay men shooting off into other men's butts?
Again, coherence seems to be an issue. But, if you're talking about us as a country, here is my response.
1. We are a democracy. That means, as a people, we vote and decide on what laws and measures to take. Technically, we are a federal democracy. This allows for variation on the laws between states, because the people of the states think differently.
2. In regards to our decisions on how to vote, in regards to our personal values, I believe it is appropriate to attempt to persuade people of your viewpoint. This is different from attempting to coerce people to adopt your viewpoint. To often lately, it appears that coercion is considered acceptable practice by the liberal left. That is wrong, and dangerous in my opinion, and dangerous to democracy as a whole.
I usually, generally agree with Prof. Somin's positions but not this time.
FIFA is a private, non-profit (HA!) company established under Swiss law.
It makes money mainly through tax exemptions and TV rights.
A true Libertarian should be good for all of this.
I don’t think a minimum of human rights standards is antithetical to libertarianism.
No, it’s not pure ideology. But some actual pragmatism is allowed.
But FIFA – by itself – isn’t involved in any human rights abuses.
And if we want to condemn FIFA for choosing Qatar for their human rights record, then we have to condemn ourselves too.
The US has a $116B foreign direct investment (govt and private) in Qatari companies.
Pgs 26 - 33: https://www.usqbc.org/public/documents/upload/test/Foreign%20Direct%20Investment%20in%20Qatar,%20Recent%20Developments%20and%20Opportunities.pdf
So this is silly pointing the finger at FIFA.
I’d imagine Prof. Somin may not disagree with that take, given his prescription above.
Free entities as nations and corporations using their market power to instantiate their values as well as seek profit. This seems pretty libertarian to me.
You can point fingers at both, it's not that hard.
This evinces a bit of misunderstanding. Qatar doesn't just have a bad human rights record in the abstract. Qatar's World Cup preparation itself involved massive human rights violations. And the way Qatar is treating participants and spectators involves further (though lesser) human rights violations.
I don’t like soccer either but this virtue signaling about hating it is pathetic.
Virtue signaling about others allegedly virtue signaling.
"he US is a far less important source of TV revenue for the World Cup than the Olympic."
but it is US companies like Budweiser that pony up millions of dollars to sponsor the Cup
"Fox Sports and Telemundo paid about $1 billion to secure rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, about four times what ESPN and Univision paid for last year's tournament."
That ain't chump change
U.S. Says FIFA Officials Were Bribed to Award World Cups to Russia and Qatar (New York Times)
FIFA President feeling the heat: "I'm gay."
Cool, cool.
These are the new and improved FIFA officials. We don't have Chuck Blazer to kick around anymore.
Don't like how World Cup or Olympics are awarded, start your own World Cup and Olympics.
I'm greatly enjoying the Western angst myself. The last minute beer ban is comedy gold.
Don't like how the World Cup or Olympics are awarded? Use your free speech and let advertisers know. They only fund this stuff because they think you don't mind.
Wait till the Beheadings at halftime
That prediction is 50+ years old and hasn't been borne out yet.
Unclear about the difference between faith and formal logic?
So you are saying rights are something created and handed out by your government?
You're the Full Monty
If you're speaking of the planet that was hypothesized by the "Climate Experts" of the 19th Century to orbit between the Sun and Mercury, it'd be pretty Hot (duh). Seems Mercury didn't obey Newtons laws of motion. Expert Astronomers even saw "little spots" moving across the Sun, proving the existence of Vitreous Floaters.
Of Course turns out Newton doesn't explain everything, took a German College Drop-out to make everything "Relative"
But if as I presume, you're referring to Mr. Spock's home planet, who knows/cares, but I'll play.
Vulcans are too logical to talk/care about the weather, because as a technologically advanced logical race, they realize they can't do anything about it. Probably why Spock emigrated to Earth (a young EV welcoming him with spread fingers in a Vulcan "V" and pointy ears)
Frank "Living Long and Prospering is the Best Revenge"
Yes, let's decide all moral issues based on feelings.
Prior to the Civil War, the South "felt" very strongly that slavery was both proper and necessary. So we should just have shrugged and said, "Hey, it's their feelings!"
Still remember a PE Coach trying to teach us the rules (Amurican Football "Offsides" simple, Soccer/"Football" "Offsides"? like Chinese Calculus). Also watched a "highlight" film of the 70" World Cup, Coach pronounced Pele' as "Peel" "This Peel is the Joe Namath of South America!!!" Strange that Soccers fans are more violent than American/College Foobaw, Pro Wrestling, Hockey combined, I think it's suffering through endless hours of pointlessly kicking the ball back over the center line, faking injuries, and no shot clock (it's basically how Basketball was played in the 1930's)
Frank "lets watch something more exciting, like Golf"
More young kids in this country play soccer than American football and baseball combined.
It's just boring as fuck with the constant kicking the ball backwards over the center line to set up another failed attempt to score. The faked injuries, that wouldn't be as painful as a routine fastball in the ribs or Real Football tackle, even if they were real. That 99% of the ball can be out of bounds and it's still in play. And no shot clock, American Basketball was played like that in the 1930's (Center jumps after every score, no shot clock) Jeez, I'm a Baseball/Chess fan and I lose interest the 3rd time Schalke kicks the ball backwards 50 yards.
I do like the "Regulation" aspect of Soccer, never happen in Amurica though, what, the Toledo Mudhens replace the Cubs??
OK, one advance, they actually tell you how much "Stoppage" time has been added at the end of the game, the announcers used to just guess (See, I watch some of the games, Mom's an Energie Cottbus fan)
Frank
"your grandkids probably will"
Yes, we are a country in decline.
No, I'm saying that "rights" are not a natural category, and it's no use trying to treat them as though they were. They ARE just precisely personal values. Often widely shared personal values, (Surprise, humans are biological creatures with instincts.) but that's still what they are.
Now, some sets of personal values work, and some sets of personal values backfire spectacularly. If there's anything to natural law that's where you'll find it. But even work vs backfire is in the realm of "ought", not "is".
So you're criticizing him for something that's unavoidable.
Of course. That is the case in many if not most instances
This moral relativism justifies slavers and genociders as just people following heterodox personal values.
I have my issues with you, but don’t believe you think this. You are not that monstrous.
I think you fail to grasp the thrust of my point.
This doesn't "justify" anybody. "Justification" is an attempt, within the "ought" realm, to say that something is righteous. And I'm not doing that here, I'm just identifying which realm we're operating in.
You think of "personal values" as something trivial, and so identifying ethics as personal values looks to you like denigrating them. But I think personal values are transcendently important. A person's values tell you all about them. People should, absolutely, act on their own values.
But they shouldn't forget that they ARE their own values, which no natural law forces other people to share.
Queen, every country DOES violate human rights in one way or another. (Ah, were it only one way...) Government is an institution which violates human rights, that it is permitted to do so is it's distinguishing characteristic.
Sadly, in this world we can only minimize, not eliminate entirely, rights violations, like somebody using a controlled burn to minimize forest fires. Having a specific institution in charge of those unavoidable violations, government, is a useful aid in minimizing them.
But if you let the government convince you that what it's doing isn't violating rights at all, you'll fail at that minimization task.
So we should just honor any oppressive regime in the world with hosting a sports event? Sure, how about we hold it in North Korea next time.
And, BTW,
World Cup: Qatar won't allow cooked Kosher food, public Jewish prayer
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-722891
Yes, it's a nasty country, and free countries should not be giving it any honor.;
I wouldn't go so far as to say those latter are utterly non-existent, the diversity of people is pretty impressive. But I think they mostly exist in the minds of people who can't accept that they're being opposed by the former.
They also used cold hard scientific logic, or a version thereof, to justify slavery, so it isn't as if there's something fundamentally superior about that approach.
So if slavery was so bad how come Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware (ask Senescent Joe, he was there) fought for the Nawth??? The Wah of Nawthun Aggression was all about putting the South in it's place, and did it very well.
It's just that in 1860 Afro-Amuricans weren't considered full human beans, you know, like we do with unborn Human beans today (of any color) Even Lincoln admitted he didn't give a shit about slavery (he said it more elegantly) but in saving the Onion, part of which was turning a blind eye to the Slave Owning Northern States (and his best General)
Frank "the truth hurts"
So what? It isn't as if you guys have much time for anyone pointing out human rights violations in your own country at the best of times, why would anyone be surprised that your response to other countries' human rights violations is moral relativism in support of indifference?
What makes you think it’s somehow your decision?
What the hell are personal values except an ought exercize?
YOU are the one making personal values trivial, by noting everyone has different ones so why should we care.
This 'to thine one self be true' is not part of the brief here. Who cares if you are a self actualized slaver or a hypocrite?!
I don't understand this at all.
When did I ever say no one should care? Never, that's when.
I keep denotating, and you keep inventing connotations. It's the one fixed star in all our arguments, you reading more into what I write than I actually wrote.
"I don’t understand this at all."
Good, good, enlightenment is starting to dawn. Pursue that thought, and it's implications.
Personally, to the (very limited!) extent I have any interest in the Olympics at all, I favor the proposal to build a permanent Olympics venue in some consensus location. Maybe Greece for the summer Olympics, and one of the Nordic countries for the winter. I certainly am not going to defend Qatar! One of the few countries where slavery is still common, their government is a human rights nightmare.
And I'm glad to point out human rights violations in the US. Civil forfeiture, for instance. Over-charging to coerce plea bargaining. Gun control laws. We've got a lot of human rights violations in the US, even if you limit yourself to nominally legal actions, and ignore things like the use of prison rape as an informal punishment.
My argument with Queenie is over her reluctance to admit that ALL governments violate human rights, that it's baked into the very concept of government. So how the hell does that cast ME as the person denying human rights get violated in the US? Were we an anarchy, and I somehow overlooked it?
It's my decision whether to speak out on the issue. If enough do, then that puts pressure on the organizers. Sports is a form of entertainment, and if the public does not like how the sports organizers are actiing, they can express their displeasure.
And the Bible. Religion was also a tool used to support slavery.
Sorry, you are wrong. Pseudo-science and pseudo-logic can be argued against and refuted. There was a long anti-slavery argument in both the US and Europe for decades leading up to the Civil War.
"I feel," OTOH is beyond argument or refutation.
This just sets up a bunch of false equivalences.
And the idea that governments inherently violate human rights is nihilism.
It can also be argued that it's baked into the concept of no-government. It’s definitely baked into the concept of economics and trade. So what? What’s the end-point of this argument?
I guess it sets up false equivalences if you're hopelessly binary in your thinking, think every human rights violation is the same, you're either perfect or Pol Pot. I don't think most people are that stupid.
Most people are capable of wrapping their heads around the notion that one person is doing something wrong, but somebody else is much worse.
Heck, even after abolishing slavery, he was a racial separatist, wanted the US to ship all the blacks off to Liberia, Haiti, anywhere but the US.
He was vastly annoyed that almost all of them wanted to stay in the country of their birth.
'So if slavery was so bad'
Oh I'm sure it was awesome! For some.
On the contrary, arguing you're the rational one just means you're not acknowledging your own values and attachments and feelings.
That creates unearned certainty which makes you actually worse at deciding issues.
"I feel" is a statement of *humility*.
It took a whole civil war to refute it, but ok. Mind you, there was also the economic argument, which might have been irrefutable if people didn't 'feel' it was utterly repellant. Bit like the Qatar World Cup - of course it makes economic sense to brutally exploit migrant labour! Facts don't care about your feelings of utter horror and disgust at the treatment of fellow human beings!
ALL governments violate human rights, that it’s baked into the very concept of government.
This sure sounds like a binary to me.
But no, violations of rights is not inherent to government. Consent of the governed is not the only indicia of legitimacy that can or does exist.
Most political philosophers would disagree with your reductive take - Locke's categorical imperative, Benthem's utility, Mills' right-utility synthesis, Marx's avoidance of exploitation of labor. Even Burke's reluctance to change - none of these contemplate government as a neccessary evil.
You're not going to get people to agree with your particular rarified philosophy as though it's an inherent fact. Come one.
Which I'm guessing Ben agrees with completely when it comes to (American) football players kneeling during the national anthem.
The biggest sport in the world better watch out then.
That's a symptom, not a virtue.
You have no idea about that, yet you’re making up stories about it.