> >>Rubbish. Equating forced submission to overwhelming violent
> >>force with tacit consent is a fallacy, and an insult to the
> >>oppressed.
> >
> > Certainly, but I have never made any such equation.
>
> Certainly looks as if you have.
I can understand that you may have had such an impression from my statements, but, as a clarification, the phrase "tacit consent" refers to the fact that oppressed and non-oppressed peoples tacitly accept their positions by not engaging in physical, political, and/or fiscal (etc) violence to overthrow the régimes that govern their lives.
I understand that this is a VERY dry view, and to a great extent an emotionally unacceptable one, and I therefore understand and accept your rejection of it.
Consider though, that peace is generally** more desirable than revolution, pre-emptive régime change, or any other state of affairs that may result from the violent promotion of "democracy" at the expense of the leaders of the régimes in question.
There are, of course, and as always, exceptions, viz.WWII, viz. Falklands, viz. American Revolution, viz. various Velvet Revolutions passim, et cetera.
> > War is, implicitly, an absence of political power.
> >
> > More broadly, I find it rather curious that you appear
> > to be arguing *against* the suggestion that political power
> > is derived from the will of the "people".
>
> In a democracy it is, in a totalitarian state it isn't.
> A regime which has taken power with force certainly wields
> political power, no matter how warlike.
Any régime that needs to resort to physical force to gain the consent of citizens, with the exception of the necessary policing of the core criminal element, is a régime that is failing to weild _political_ power, IMO, given that IMO political power is derived from the tacit consent of the people. Political power involves convincing people that the nature, form, and aims of the politics that have been engaged upon are the "best" ones. People are unlikely to agree with these views when the execution of the powers involves violence against their persons. But as long as there are people who are willing, successfully or not, to organise resistance against those régimes, the political power of the régimes will be limited by the aggregate strength of the people in question.
The question of which political system is better to which is a separate issue, notwithstanding the fact that non-democratic systems are unacceptable to people who have their faith in democracy as the "best" system.
> >>>>The challenge then is for you to name one case where a
> >>>>non-democratic government is better.
> >>>
> >>>Theocracy. Vatican.
> >>>
> >>>Venice during the Renaissance.
> >>>
> >>>et cetera ad nauseam ...
> >>
> >>And now tell us why democracy wouldn't work/have worked as
> >>well or better.
> >
> > Because the constituents don't/didn't believe in the basic
> > tenets of democracy (as currently defined).
>
> 1. How do you know that.
Because I live in the Principality of Monaco, which is a hereditary and technically absolute monarchy (although the monarch has sovereignly limited his powers via the Constitution), and certainly _not_ a democracy.
And the vast majority of people who live here believe that the system in place is far, far better than democracy.
> 2. Hard to believe in something you have no idea it exists.
Hard to be unaware that something called democracy exists, in these internet revolution days ...
> Anyway, you haven't proved in any way that democracy wouldn't
> work/have worked as well or better.
That's because such an opinion would be impossible to prove, as it is a matter for belief and political theory, instead of hard science.
Of course, actually living in a non-democratic state where life is,
generally speaking, far, far better than in the "democracy" next door,
(that's France, BTW, for the benefit of any Texan idiots in the
audience)
and where direct access by each subject or resident to the weilders
of political power is hard reality, not a dream nor fantasy, does lead
one
to consider the well-publicized virtues of democracy, or rather
"democracy", in a rather different light.
Julian
--
__________________________________
"Hmmm, I've heard of other powers.
Can you tell me about ...
... Real Life ?"
Powered by hypermail