If there is a solution it almost certainly is to work patiently with other countries
The problem here is that it assumes an "us" and "them" approach, which is clearly invalid. The article does a good job of pointing out the differences in interpretation of the right to free speech, even across "western" countries. Those difference apply to everything.
I was hoping the article would present an alternative way of reasoning societal goals. For example, the Chinese government often emphasises the value of stability and cohesion. I don't think these values (on their own) are necessarily better or worse than those articulated in the declaration of human rights.
Maybe it is possible to unify these under a single framework? For example, the "least harm" model is often used for evaluation of morality. Perhaps that makes sense here too?
I think that people have been looking for alternatives to Hobbes for a long time. Unfortunately unless we vastly improve our education systems or fundamentally change certain aspects of human nature most of his observations about leviathans vs the state of nature (revolution) tend to coincide with the principle of least harm when considered over slightly longer timescales.
With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health).
>With respect to societal goals I think it is also important to realize that we often want conflicting things and that in the US we struggle with societal goal setting (just look at the absurdity of the debates over healthcare because we essentially refuse to articulate and decide on societal goals around health).
Of course the US refuses. To decide on goals about health would imply that there are higher values than the pursuit of capital accumulation.
The problem here is that it assumes an "us" and "them" approach, which is clearly invalid. The article does a good job of pointing out the differences in interpretation of the right to free speech, even across "western" countries. Those difference apply to everything.
I was hoping the article would present an alternative way of reasoning societal goals. For example, the Chinese government often emphasises the value of stability and cohesion. I don't think these values (on their own) are necessarily better or worse than those articulated in the declaration of human rights.
Maybe it is possible to unify these under a single framework? For example, the "least harm" model is often used for evaluation of morality. Perhaps that makes sense here too?